Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the electricity industry flotation.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): This privatisation has been an outstanding success with the issue over 10 times subscribed. There were 12·75 million applications. Despite this, 97 per cent. of customers who applied and over two thirds of all who applied will receive some shares. About one quarter will receive all they applied for.
The continued overwhelming public interest in participating in privatisation shows the public support for the regional electricity companies and for privatisation.

Mr. Moate: May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend and everyone else involved on successfully concluding today what must be the largest privatisation in the history of the western world? Does not the fact that some 5 million to 6 million people are believed to have applied for shares show that only a few in the socialist bastions on the Opposition Benches do not understand the instincts of the people of Britain for a capital-owning democracy?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that the flotation has had massive public support. As I said, 12·75 million applications were made, and his estimate that between 5 million and 6 million customers were involved is not far from the mark. Over four and a half times as many people applied as did, for example, for shares in the water industry.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that while he has been spending billions or millions of pounds of public money on floating off the electricity industry, 60,000 people were cut off in the Chesterfield district over the weekend due to the storms, 1,000 faults occurred and 20,000 emergency calls were made? Is he aware that many people will not be reconnected until the weekend and that their water supplies are affected, too? Is he aware that if he were a local councillor he would be surcharged for wilful neglect?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be a private notice question on that very matter later.

Mr. Benn: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, my question is about the ownership and control of the industry. People would be happy to plug into what they are buying.

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate the number of people whose electricity supply was cut off over the weekend. I was included in that number. I visited the National Grid control yesterday afternoon and I have spoken to the chairmen of the companies most affected. Altogether, 1 million customers lost supply at the peak. By early this morning that figure had been reduced to about 380,000. Most supplies should be back on today or tomorrow, but for some it may take longer. The companies have worked hard to restore supplies. The regional electricity companies that are not severely affected are providing assistance to others. Specialist contractors have been brought in and the Army is providing help. I am sure that the whole House wishes to join me in expressing appreciation of the hard work in difficult conditions which the engineers, linesmen and other staff are undertaking.

Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend accept our congratulations on the success of his undoubted personal efforts in attracting millions of shareholders into the electricity industry? Does he agree that that represents real public ownership, not the parody which the Labour party favours?

Mr. Wakeham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The sale of the 12 companies will realise £8 billion. That is a considerable achievement which disproves the allegation that the privatisation was too difficult to be completed. It represents excellent value for taxpayers.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, according to the audited accounts of the 12 regional companies and the National Grid Company, the net assets of the industry being sold at the moment are worth £16 billion? Will he confirm that he intends to sell those assets for less than £8 billion in total? What was his primary duty? Was it to look after the interests of the taxpayer and the electricity consumers whose bills helped to build up those assets over the years, or was it to bung £100 million to City advisers and underwriters who took no risks whatever?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has his way of looking at these things. My task was to find a proper price which was fair to the taxpayer and fair to those who were purchasing shares in the company. The price has been properly based on the value of anticipated future earnings and dividends. That is how the industry should be valued.

Mr. Morgan: Properly based? The right hon. Gentleman does not know what that means.

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet, I shall do my best to answer the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) may have a chance to ask a supplementary question, but at the moment I am trying to reply to his hon. Friend.
I have outlined the way in which the industry should be valued. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to the current cost account of assets, or replacement costs, and that is not what the taxpayer paid for the assets. To go along the line that he recommends


and to realise proceeds equivalent to current cost account would mean a substantial increase in electricity prices. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I just tell the House that although I understand the importance of what happened over the weekend several other questions on the Order Paper are more relevant to the bad weather that has been experienced in many parts of the country. Question 6 is, perhaps, an example.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to have discussions with the European Commission about alternative sources of energy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Alternative sources of energy are likely to feature in future Council discussions. The next Energy Council meeting is planned for 11 March 1991.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend think that too much research into alternative forms of energy is undertaken nationally? Should not more be undertaken on a Community basis?

Mr. Moynihan: I think that the balance is about right. It is important that we stimulate the development and application of renewable sources of energy wherever they have prospects of becoming economically competitive and environmentally acceptable. The European Community has an important role in this, as do the Government. I believe that we have the balance right at present.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that one vital source of alternative energy is conservation and that the insulation of buildings plays a crucial role in that? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, because there is no credible conservation policy in his Department, Pilkington in my constituency is having to lay off substantial numbers of staff due to a lack of orders? Is not it ironic that it is laying off staff during the coldest weather that we have experienced for a long time?

Mr. Moynihan: I am unaware of the specific example to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I agree with him, however, about the importance of conservation and of energy efficiency. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is new to his job of Under-Secretary of State for Energy, has launched so energetically an energy efficiency programme during his first few weeks in post.

Sir Antony Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that my grandfather built the last operative windmill in this country? Will he say a few words about the prospects of wind power? That is perhaps not an inappropriate question for me to ask in this Chamber.

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. and learned Friend will be delighted to learn that five new projects have come forward under the first tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some months ago.
One problem in the important work that we are putting into developing environmentally acceptable and economically competitive wind power is posed by the many

environmentalists who are in favour of wind power but strongly opposed to planning applications. More work needs to be done, especially with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, on issuing planning policy guidance notes to assist councils.

North Sea (Safety)

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he proposes to take to improve safety in the North sea.

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with representatives of the offshore oil industry on the implementation of the Cullen report.

Mr. Moynihan: I regularly meet people from all sides of the offshore oil industry, and matters relating to the Cullen report are frequently discussed.
As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement on 12 November about the report of the public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster, the Government are now acting to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations for a new regulatory system. We are determined to ensure that the lessons of the disaster are fully learnt and thoroughly put into effect.

Mr. Doran: The Minister will be aware that, with members of the Piper Alpha families and survivors group, I have organised a conference to debate the implementa-tion of the Cullen report with particular reference to industrial relations. The Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the director general of the Health and Safety Executive, Mr. Rimington, have supported my efforts to organise that conference and I am grateful to the Minister for the particular support that he has given. Unfortunately, however, the oil industry has refused to participate. Does the Minister agree that health and safety and industrial relations are inextricably linked and that one cannot have bad industrial relations and good safety standards? Does he also agree that the oil industry has lost a valuable opportunity to discuss this important issue?

Mr. Moynihan: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his assiduous work in getting that conference off the ground. He is aware that I was keen to participate, but I am unable to do so at short notice. However, I am pleased that Mr. Tony Barrell will be attending the conference —he is the new head of the offshore safety division and I am sure that he will make an important contribution. I have also made it clear to the hon. Gentleman and those organising the conference that I am more than happy to meet the organisers whenever I am in Aberdeen or at a time of their convenience.
I accept that safety must be, and always has been, a top priority. Primary responsibility for safety rests with the operator and I am not convinced that emphasis should be placed too heavily on trade union membership. The important issue is to ensure that on each platform every worker has the opportunity, through his safety representative, to make his voice heard and his concerns clear. It is our determination that that must be the priority.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that those of us who live many miles from the sea, but have had the benefit of visiting those lonely, dangerous outposts in


the North sea, accept that if it cost another 1p a gallon or 1p a therm on gas from the gas fields to ensure that safety is the absolute top concern it would be money well spent? Lives will always be lost in those dangerous occupations, but the fewer the better. We can never justify making an extra penny for an extra life lost.

Mr. Moynihan: Offshore safety should never be sacrificed by anyone—on either side of the Chamber—because of lack of resources. We shall place resources at the forefront of our thinking when the changes necessary as a result of the Cullen report are implemented.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister recognise that, now that all Members have had time to study the Cullen report, one is forced to the conclusion that it is the most devastating indictment of any Government's health and safety record to be published? Is not it incredible that at the time of the Piper Alpha disaster 50 per cent. of inspectors' posts were vacant? Is not it also true that more than one third of those posts were vacant at the start of this year? Since the publication of the Cullen report what urgent action have the Government taken to secure an increase in the number of safety inspectors?

Mr. Moynihan: Many steps. First and foremost, we recognise that we want top qualified people in the inspectorate and to achieve that we must pay them. Before Lord Cullen's report was published a 23 per cent. pay increase was rightly awarded to the inspectorate to encourage more people to fill the vacancies. In 1977, the complement of inspectors was 21, but the complement in November this year was 60. In addition. approximately 250 man years have been devoted annually by technically qualified staff of the certifying authorities to the inspectorate. When staff from the inspectorate move to the Health and Safety Executive the priority will be to ensure that they are qualified to do the job and are properly remunerated. As I have already said, resources will be provided to ensure that that objective is achieved.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Although I welcome the Minister's initial acceptance of the recommendations of Lord Cullen's report, how are discussions going on transferring the safety division to the HSE? When those staff are transferred, will he ensure that the resources are available so that the new department does not suffer from the same shortages as were so devastatingly exposed by the Cullen report?

Mr. Moynihan: In fairness, I have answered the question on resources in the affirmative. As for the hon. Gentleman's first question, discussions are going well and are underlined with a sense of urgency about the need to implement the changes relevant to Government as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that today the safety directorate has become the offshore safety division under Mr. Tony Barrell, who has joined us from the Health and Safety Executive. That is an important bridge to have crossed. Important work will now be done to implement the remaining recommendations as soon as possible.

Energy Strategy

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to formulate and implement a long-term national strategy for energy.

Mr. Wakeham: Our strategy for energy has been stated on many occasions.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not it a cruel irony that on the weekend when we saw the final stages of the flotation of the electricity industry, more than 5,000 of my constituents in the Borders were devoid of any electricity supply, sometimes for more than 24 hours, and that some of them are still cut off? Does the Secretary of State understand that were it not for the courage and dedication of the engineers and line staff, that figure would have been higher? When will the Government bring forward a long-term strategy for the energy industry to guarantee future security of supply and ensure that the supply system is hardened against adverse weather conditions so that the effects of events similar to those last weekend will, in future, be minimised?

Mr. Wakeham: I have already paid tribute to the work of all those who were, and still are, involved in restoring electricity supplies in the face of some extremely difficult weather conditions. The electricity companies and the Department are continually considering ways in which security of supply can be improved, and any lessons to be learnt will be learnt. Our broader energy policy is clear; it is to ensure that the United Kingdom has adequate and secure supplies of energy in the forms that people want it, at the lowest realistic prices, by subjecting as much of energy supply as is practical to the operation of market forces. That includes oil, gas, nuclear, renewables and coal.
As this is the last Question Time with Lord Haslam as chairman of British Coal, I hope that the House will not mind if I take the opportunity to record the Government's appreciation of the impressive leadership that he has given to the industry during the past five years.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Last week the chairman of British Coal announced excellent financial results and said that coal was king again and would feature in any future energy strategy. Those achievements were due entirely to the Government's policies and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, which negotiated wages and conditions to allow greater take-home pay from productivity, while reducing coal prices to customers by 40 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the coal industry has a great future running into the next century as long as the miners watch their backs against the synthetic support of Opposition Members, one of whom has already betrayed the industry by replacing his coal-fired boiler with a gas one? I refer to none other than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Wakeham: The coal industry has made significant improvements since the 1984–85 strike which we should recognise and which are a great tribute to the management and the miners. After the strike the average miner produced 571 tonnes of coal; today that figure is 1,080 tonnes. Since the end of the strike, output has remained almost unchanged, while the number of collieries has been halved without a single compulsory redundancy. As the House will know, British Coal recently achieved a new productivity record of more than 5 tonnes per man shift.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State understand that people who have been without electricity over the past weekend appreciate only too well that their supplies have not been reconnected because the electricity companies


have been more concerned with selling off their assets in the privatisation organised by the Secretary of State, at less than half their proper value?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's question convinces me that his party will never get into government again. If Labour has such contempt for the thousands of people in the electricity supply industry who worked their hardest over the weekend to restore supplies, no wonder people are looking elsewhere for political support.

Mr. Moss: The tremendous success of the first stage in the privatisation of the electricity industry is due not only to an attractive share flotation but to the radical reorganisation that the Government undertook in the generation and supply of electricity. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement recently made to me by the president of the New York Power Authority, that the United Kingdom is now seen as a world leader in electricity supply, which was not the case before privatisation?

Mr. Wakeham: The electricity supply system that we have devised is regarded with admiration and envy in the west as well as in the old iron curtain countries. The United Kingdom's flexible approach to marketing and competition serves as a model for the whole world.

Mr. Hardy: Referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), which the Secretary of State echoed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that, although British Coal has secured splendid improvements in productivity, the coalfield communities have paid a vicious price in terms of their changing economy and environment?
Has British Coal paid its electricity bill? Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why, for the first time in modern history, collieries in South Yorkshire found themselves without electricity, when men were travelling up the shaft in the pit cage?

Mr. Wakeham: The question whether British Coal has paid its electricity bill is for its management. I have no doubt that the bill has been paid and that the management has negotiated good supplies with the regional electricity companies. Last weekend saw some of the worst weather ever experienced. That is certainly true of north Nottinghamshire, as I know from the chairman of the electricity board there. But it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman continually to snipe at the work force that is trying to put things right.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the need for a truly national energy policy—one that ensures that all parts of the kingdom have access to national fuel and energy resources? I refer not just to the provision of oil and gas to Northern Ireland but to an electricity interconnector. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the need to ensure that not only private consumers but commerce and industry in Northern Ireland are not penalised by high energy prices?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not have responsibility for the regime in Northern Ireland, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has proposals for improving the position there. In privatising the electricity industry in England and Wales, we have borne in mind the principle that while interconnectors can certainly be built, they must be commercially justifiable.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend promise the House that part of his long-term strategy will be the early privatisation of the coal industry—which would be popular with customers, miners and taxpayers? Does he agree that the only contribution of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to a national long-term energy strategy is hot air?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Wakeham: I must disagree. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) represents the mining industry vigorously in the House. I mostly disagree with what he has to say, but no one could say that he has no knowledge of the subject, or that he does not express his views with vigour. He will not like what I am going to say next—the Government are committed to the privatisation of the coal industry, although not until after the next election.

Mr. Barron: Does the Minister recognise that there is a difference between diversity of supply and security of supply? Does he think that anyone will be any happier after the events of this weekend when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned, many coalminers were left underground? Many in my constituency were also left underground for hours on Friday night. I refer to the fact that the duty to supply electricity to consumers has been taken away.

Mr. Wakeham: That is a misunderstanding of the arrangements. Security of supply is now protected by arrangements which the regional electricity companies have to enter into, the contracts that they have to enter into and the terms of their licences.

Mr. Barron: No.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the position in the past and he misunderstands it now. The regional electricity companies have an obligation to enter into contracts for the adequate supply of electricity, under the terms of their licences. If they do not contract for enough, they will have to go into the market to buy it, and it will be very expensive.

Renewable Energy

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives he intends to take on energy production from renewable sources.

Mr. Moynihan: Provisions under the non-fossil fuel obligation have already provided a substantial boost to renewables development, and further orders will be brought forward during the 1990s. My Department's research and development budget for renewables is due to increase next year by about 20 per cent., to more than £24 million.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that if the ancestor of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) tried to build a windmill today, he would find it almost impossible because of obstacles placed in his way by the Government, as the people developing Mynydd Cemaes in mid-Wales are finding? Why have the Government not applied to the EC for continuing favoured treatment for renewables after 1998? Do they still not realise the enormous potential of renewables to


provide us with energy from sources which are free, British, benign to the human habitat and eternal in their duration?

Mr. Moynihan: The grandfather of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) would also not have had the opportunity to benefit from the substantial Government programme of assis-tance for the development of wind energy. The United Kingdom wind energy research and development programme is second to none. The hon. Gentleman refers to difficulties faced by those putting forward applications, but they are simply the difficulties of bringing forward planning proposals for consideration by local councils. I hope that many of those proposals come into play, not least because we want to ensure that there is a sound commercial base for the exploitation of wind energy in this country. We need to ensure that we have appropriate wind farms in different places to test their economic viability and environmental acceptability.

Mr. Aitken: In relation to my hon. Friend's remarks about the need for a sound commercial basis for renewable energy sources, will he take note of the disappointing results produced by Britain's largest wind generator, situated in Richborough in my constituency, which produces electricity at a cost of well over 10p per kilowatt, compared with the cost of generating electricity from oil which is approximately a quarter of that sum? Is not that some indication of the fact that some of the heady words about wind power may be only so much hot air?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend will perhaps have taken note of the fact that whenever I have referred to wind power and its environmental acceptability, I have also emphasised the importance of ensuring that it is economic. One of the important lessons learnt in the past few years is that if we move to smaller wind farms—a number of smaller wind farms were contracted under the first round of the non-fossil fuel obligation—we hope that they will be more economically competitive. We have a long way to go. I am undoubtedly of the view that putting research and development and support behind separate wind trials next year under the NFFO will assist us to make them economically competitive as well as environmentally acceptable.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not it be a very enlightened move if British Nuclear Fuels were to invest some of its considerable research and development personnel in this area? Would not that help to green the reputation of British Nuclear Fuels' development?

Mr. Moynihan: I have never seen any reason why expenditure on renewables research and development should bear any proportional relationship to nuclear expenditure. I recognise, however, that we need top-quality manpower, researchers and scientists to embark on wind energy research and development projects, and those men we have.

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations his Department has received regarding proposals by National Power and PowerGen to generate electricity using the combined cycle gas turbine.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations regarding applications by National Power and PowerGen for his consent to construct and operate individual CCGT stations.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister believe that a national limit should be fixed for the amount of gas that can be used to generate electricity? Does he see any possibility of British Gas itself being able to generate electricity using this system?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The use of fuels is a matter for the commercial judgment of the generators. There are substantial reserves of gas in the North sea and it is perfectly acceptable for some of that to be used to generate electricity, but a large share of the British energy market will continue to be provided by the burning of coal.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of PowerGen to discuss privatisation.

Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of PowerGen regularly to discuss all aspects of PowerGen's business.

Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about the miners and the mining industry, and the wonderful contribution that they are making to meet the energy requirements of the nation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are two chairmen—the chairman of PowerGen, who is leaving us in a few months, and the chairman of National Power, who has already gone—and will he think seriously about the amount of compensation paid to those two people? Will he take that into consideration when miners lose their jobs in the pits due to privatisation of the electricity industry and will it have a knock-on effect so that miners who are made redundant can enjoy like compensation?

Mr. Wakeham: As I have already said, the great improvement in productivity in the mines has been brought about in part by the number of redundancies that we have made, but all those redundancies have been made on a voluntary basis. I hope that that basis can continue, but that is a matter for British Coal and the workers concerned, and the levels of compensation are matters to be negotiated between them—as, of course, is the question of compensation paid to the chairman of a nationalised industry or Government company when he retires. The Government have always worked on such a basis—we seek to find a sum equivalent to the amount that would be awarded if the matter went to court.

Mr. McCartney: There is almost a conspiracy of silence in the Government about the effect on the coalfield communities of the purchasing policies of companies such as PowerGen and National Power. Those communities are experiencing thousands upon thousands of job losses, and a dislocation of environmental and economic well-bing. What steps will the Government take to assist local authorities and the private sector to rebuild and re-establish those communities?
This winter, in my constituency, hundreds of miners are being made redundant, and thousands have already been made redundant. How long will it be before our


communities have been bled dry on the altar of privatisation? The Government cannot continue to wash their hands of the matter. When will the Minister intervene to provide resources for the rebuilding of our shattered communities?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman expresses views which are strong but not necessarily accurate. Far from hiding a light under a bushel, on the day contracts were negotiated between British Coal and the generators I came to the House and announced the details—I was very proud of what had been achieved by British Coal and by the generating industry. I also paid considerable tribute to the way in which British Coal and its work force had adapted to the new situation. There has been a vast improvement in productivity—to which I would expect the hon. Gentleman to give credit, rather than making carping remarks—and the redundancies that have been made have all been on a voluntary basis, for which we should all be grateful.

Mr. Morgan: I have heard the words "successful privatisation" reiterated so often by the lemming tendency on the Conservative Benches that I almost expected to see the Secretary of State for Energy dressed in his Santa Claus uniform. He obviously believes that a major tax cut for the yuppy classes has come early this year in the form of privatisation, in time for them to buy their Christmas presents. It has been described, not by me but by the Lex column of the Financial Times this morning, as a fraud on the taxpayer. When the Secretary of State privatises the generators next February or March, will he have learnt anything? Does he consider that when he privatises the generators it will be necessary to discount them by 40 per cent. and put them on a running yield of more than 30 per cent., thus privatising our major national assets at junk bond prices?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman does not understand these matters. That is evident from the way in which he put his question. The price being placed on the 12 electricity companies is a proper price, based on the value of expected future earnings and dividends.

Mr. Morgan: What about fraud?

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in fraud, I could answer his question, but the way in which he prefaced it suggests that he knows very little about fraud. There is of course the question of fraud. We are very careful about fraud and take it very seriously indeed. We have developed highly sophisticated methods to detect fraud. We have learnt lessons from the previous flotations. That may come as news to the hon. Gentleman, who seems to leak information of a partial sort to the newspapers. I would not disclose publicly the methods used to detect fraud, as it might assist criminals.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Transport and Hospitality

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent by his office in 1990 on official transport and hospitality.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): In the current financial year my office has spent £28,779 on official transport and hospitality.

Mr. Banks: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming his master's voice in the Conservative party. The figure that he has just given is absolutely scandalous. Taxpayers' money is being used to subsidise the Conservative party. That is what it is; it is a non-Government job. If the Labour party were to suggest that, one can imagine the outrage in the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he might obviate some of the more obvious public criticism of this waste of taxpayers' money if, as chairman of the Conservative party, he were to go to Cheltenham and expel the disgusting racists in the Conservative association there and if he would also end the discriminatory employment practices at Conservative central office?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will doubtless have read in the newspapers the remarks that I have made about Cheltenham. As for his observations about expenses, he should not assume that the way in which he may have behaved as chairman of the Greater London council is the way in which Ministers behave. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I make a contribution to the Government as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, although intense personal modesty constrains me from setting out exactly what it might be.

Dr. Cunningham: Are we to believe that a Cabinet— including the right hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on taking up his new office and retaining his seat in the Cabinet—able to bring about the almost instantaneous resignation of one of the most powerful Prime Ministers this century is incapable of getting rid of a few despicable racists in the Tory party in Cheltenham?

Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we do not hold a membership list at Conservative central office. As I have already made clear, I would not wish to work shoulder to shoulder with people such as the mar. to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether in his capacity as Chancellor he has received any representations arising from opencast mining being undertaken in Lancashire under interim develop-ment orders.

Mr. Chris Patten: None, Sir.

Mr. Pike: When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster next visits the county, will he visit Facit and Britannia quarries in Bacup, where he will be appalled at the destruction taking place? Will he use every power that he has to ensure that the appropriate Minister introduces early legislation to stop that destruction and devastation taking place?

Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman might anticipate, I expect to make several visits to the county in the immediate and longer-term future. As for the planning issue that he raises, I am sure that he will be aware that in a White Paper on the environment, produced undo- a previous Secretary of State for the Environment, we said that we intend to review the operation of the Town and


Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981, which will include a review of interim development orders. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. That is why the review is important.

Mr. Mans: When my right hon. Friend next visits Lancashire to look at opencast mining, will he take the opportunity to arrange a meeting with the leader of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council to discuss the state of social services in the county and, in particular, of residential homes, many of which are of a lower standard than those in the private sector?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about opencast mines.

Mr. Mans: In Lancashire.

Mr. Speaker: In Lancashire, yes.

Mr. Patten: So far as I know, there are no opencast mines on the Duchy's property—I do not think that there are any social services establishments, either—but I take seriously what my hon. Friend says. I hope to have an opportunity to point out to the leader of the Labour-controlled county council how the community charge is far too high because of the activities of the Labour group and how, alas, services do not seem to be as splendid as they should be, given the amount of money that the community charge payer pays for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Cathedrals

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Commissioners have made about the Government's proposal that the Department of the Environment will assist with the maintenance of cathedrals.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): None, Sir, because, while they welcome the Government's proposal, the Commissioners have no direct responsibility for the maintenance of cathedrals. The primary duty of the Commissioners is the support of the full-time parochial ministry of the Church of England, in service and retirement, and the bulk of their income is used for that purpose.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this extra money means that there will be much less pressure on cathedrals to sell their historic treasures? It demonstrates the Government's concern for the environ-ment and for our cultural heritage, and perhaps a bouquet should go to the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for getting the money from the Treasury.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. The £11·5 million to be spent over the next three years by the Government and by the Secretary of State for the Environment, in particular, is very welcome, although the Church must make up more than £70 million to contribute to that source. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy was an important and potent force in securing that welcome financial input from the Government and we are grateful for his help.

Mr. Frank Field: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering land that the Commissioners may sell—he rightly said that the proceeds of those sales are used to pay clergy salaries—will he consider the Commissioners' duty in relation to employment levels in different parts of the country? If it does not cause the Commissioners great expense, should not they withdraw land from areas of high employment so that Government jobs in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can go to areas of high unemployment such as the one that I represent?

Mr. Alison: I naturally have much sympathy for the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, particularly in regard to the Birkenhead constituency and Merseyside, where developments that increase employment might take place. The initiative for planning applications for the use of Church Commission land must come initially from the person or unit wishing to develop land. If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food central scientific laboratory is projected to be at a particular locality in, say, North Yorkshire, the only way in which the Commission could stop it would be by refusing to sell the land, but the Ministry might then compulsorily purchase it. However, I personally will write to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food drawing his attention to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the central scientific laboratory might be located away from North Yorkshire and see what happens.

Mr. Latham: I warmly welcome the fact that Government money is available to preserve the matchless heritage of our historic cathedrals, which are famous throughout the world. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no diminution in the money available for English Heritage to help historic parish churches, many of which are in a serious state?

Mr. Alison: I take careful note of my hon. Friend's point. The sums available to English Heritage through the Government have been steadily increasing and are at an all-time high in the current financial year.

Church Commission (Assets)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what was the value of the assets of the Church Commission at their latest valuation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: As at 31 December 1989, the Church Commissioners' total assets were valued at £3,082 million, as shown in that year's annual report, of which I think my hon. Friend has a copy.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Church Commissioners on their successful investment policies over the past few years, which have benefited clergy through higher salaries and stipends? May I hope that they will do as well in coming years as they have dome in recent years?

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to the successful investment policies that the Church Commissioners have been carrying out. We have more than kept ahead of inflation in terms of stipends and retirement pension levels. However, the next few years look like being a period of greater constraint on Church


Commissioners resources. To keep as well ahead of inflation as we have in the past will be quite a tough operation. It is right to warn that colder economic winds are blowing. As always, however, we shall do our best to maintain clergy stipends and pensions at the highest possible level.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Former Prime Ministers

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council what special arrangements are made in the House for the accommodation of former Prime Ministers.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Members' rooms within the Palace and parliamentary outbuildings are allocated by the Government and Opposition parties' Whips on behalf of the Services Committee. Any special arrangements required are considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Mr. Banks: As there will be three ex-Prime Ministers in the House of Commons after the next general election perhaps we should have a special badge made for them —with crossed daggers on a blood-red background. To save the last Prime Minister expending a reported £9·5 million of her money to provide offices and a home for herself, could we offer her a suite of offices in county hall, which is empty? I am sure that she would be suitably happy there. We could all move over there as well. Now that the right hon. Lady has gone, will the right hon. Gentleman consider using county hall for offices for Members of Parliament?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will be disappointed in respect of the first part of his question because he will find that things will not turn out as he suggests. As for the rest of his question, I have nothing to add to what the hon. Gentleman was told in a reply that he received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 23 November.

Sir Anthony Grant: Before my right hon. Friend gets too fussed about the accommodation of former Prime Ministers, will he apply his mind to the accommodation of the present Prime Minister? Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and point out that, although we are enormously proud that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister resides in Cambridgeshire, there is a substantial additional security cost to be borne by the poor old Cambridgeshire police?

Mr. MacGregor: The question is about accommodation in the House, which is rather different, but I will pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Middle East War

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to establish a Select Committee to examine the likely ecological consequences of a war in the middle east.

Mr. MacGregor: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House sensitive to the fact that some of his parliamentary colleagues look enviously across the Atlantic at Senator Sam Nunn and his committee? In circumstances in which the Front Benches may basically agree, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Commons goes about its business in a desultory fashion? For example, when General Powell came to Committee Room 14, he talked about a possible use of nuclear weapons, fire trenches and ghastly ecological consequences from carbon dioxide emissions. Should not that subject be investigated by a Select Committee which sits at least as often as the American select committee?

Mr. MacGregor: There have been several statements and questions on these matters in the past few weeks and we shall have a further opportunity to debate them fully tomorrow. I do not think that there is a case for establishing a special Select Committee to consider that question.

Mr. Latham: Why do we need a Select Committee when every hon. Member knows perfectly well that the way for such ecological difficulties to be avoided is for Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait immediately?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Select Committees

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration he has given to the recommendations of the Procedure Committee report on Select Committees; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I am considering the recommendations made by the Committee and will make a statement in due course.

Mr. Wallace: It will come as no surprise to the Lord President if I draw his attention to paragraph 271 of the Select Committee report, which states that the House is entitled to look to him to try to find a solution to the non-establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is in contravention of our Standing Orders. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to consult the Opposition parties to try to reach a compromise and find a way of doing something that is long overdue?

Mr. MacGregor: I have been considering the matter, although, as I have told the House, I find it difficult to envisage a way forward in the current Session. I have recently had discussions with one of the Opposition parties.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Many of us will have noted from Hansard that the Lord President had to attend the House—having cancelled constituency business—on Friday, when one or two London Members dropped in to try to change the procedures of the House to enable them to work from 9 am to 5 pm so that they can see their constituents in the evening and have the weekends off. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that many of us regard our existing hours as sensible and reasonable?

Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that I am prepared to examine the whole question of procedure and hours, although I am well aware of the difficulties of achieving change. My hon. Friend has made a good point.
In considering these matters, one must take into account the interests of all Members of the House from all backgrounds—in particular, the difficulties of hon. Members who represent constituencies a long way from Westminster. All those issues will have to be addressed.

Mr. Madden: What plans does the Lord President have to tackle the vexed question of the Chairmen of several Select Committees holding a range of private commercial interests which impinge directly on their Committees' activities? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that that creates the opportunity for abuse and may give rise to conflicts of interest, and that it is a scandal which is long overdue for attention?

Mr. MacGregor: Without accepting any of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I remind him that the matter is being looked at by a particular Committee at the moment.

Procedural Changes

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what discussions he has had regarding procedural changes for the House; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I have had a number of discussions relating to procedural change. I am always willing to receive and consider ideas for improvement in our procedures.

Mr. Skinner: If we change our hours of work in this place, will the Lord President consider the early-daymotion with an amendment carrying many hon. Members' signatures suggesting that any system of payment should be based on the number of hours worked and that we should clock on and clock off as happens outside? Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear it in mind that it would not be a bad idea to have full-time Members of Parliament, as 19 Tory ex-Cabinet Ministers now hold 59 directorships between them?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that in the House the number of hours worked or clocking on and off bear any relation to effectiveness. I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman is a Standing Committee in himself, but I am not sure that he is any longer capable of amendment or procedural change. Such matters must also be taken into account in considering effectiveness.

Dr. Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for making it clear at the outset of his tenure of office that he is willing to have a fundamental review of the hours worked in the House, a review which many of us believe is long overdue. I am ready to work constructively with the Leader of the House to see how change can be brought about and to create a consensus. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this House sits for far longer than almost any other western legislature, but we are not conspicuously better at producing good legislation, as the poll tax Bill makes clear?

Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's nonpolitically contentious point, I am grateful to him for the way in which he is approaching the matter and for his offer of co-operation. I certainly hope to work with him when considering procedures and hours. On a slightly wider point, if we are to be effective, it is important that we have the co-operation of all hon. Members. So often, the understandable willingness to use the rules in any way possible negates the objective of changes that are made.

Members' Cafeteria

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what suggestions from the suggestions book in the Members' Cafeteria have been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: Since the House returned from the summer recess, six comments of substance have been entered in the Members Cafeteria comments book. Three related to the rule on smoking and three asked for the provision of certain dishes or foodstuffs.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the inauguration of the suggestions books. Will he assure the House that a positive view will be taken of the suggestions and, in particular, that when more rice pudding is asked for, it might be allowed?

Mr. MacGregor: I had a suspicion that my hon. Friend might ask that question. I can assure him that special efforts have been taken to ensure that it is available in large quantities today.

Severe Weather

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the disruption of essential services over the weekend as a result of the severe weather conditions.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The present situation is that all main roads and railway lines are usable, some requiring special care. Some minor roads are blocked. Train services are near normal on most routes and airports and seaports are operating normally.
At present some 380,000 customers are without an electricity supply. Most reconnections should be achieved today or tomorrow, but it will take longer in some isolated areas. Some 500,000 people are still without piped water. Supplies have already been restored to 1 million people and most of those still without a supply will be reconnected today. Nearly all the telephone subscribers who lost their supplies have been reconnected.
The emergency services in all areas have been working flat out and the House will want to join me in paying tribute to their dedication and efficiency. The armed forces assisted in a number of areas and their work has contributed a great deal to what has been achieved. Much of the work was undertaken by the Territorial Army, proving the worth of our volunteers once again.
The Met Office has said that severe weather is unlikely to recur during the rest of this week. We may therefore hope that repair work can proceed without general interruption. In the meantime, I urge everyone in the worst-affected areas to avoid travel unless that is absolutely necessary.
Unduly harsh weather always presents us with new problems and I shall be considering with my colleagues any lessons that should be learnt from the events of the weekend. I hope that hon. Members will bear it in mind that it was the most severe blizzard suffered in this country so early in the winter for a number of years. The emergency services performed valiantly and demonstrated once again the quality of the public services on which we can rely in such emergencies.

Mr. Hattersley: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his first appearance in the House as Home Secretary.
I should like to express Opposition Members' condolences to the relatives of those who died as a result of the weekend's severe weather, our sympathy to those who were injured or lost property and our gratitude to the emergency services, many other public bodies and private individuals who worked so valiantly—I agree with the word used by the Home Secretary—during the past 36 to 48 hours.
The Home Secretary will know that there is a feeling of surprise that, despite its brief severity, such a storm should have caused such continuous disruption. In the light of that, I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman some specific questions.
Is there still national co-ordination of emergency services? When, for Listance, it was discovered that drivers had been stranded in some areas for 12 hours of more, was additional assistance made available by a central

co-ordinating authority? Will the Home Secretary make it unequivocally clear where the legal responsibility lies for clearing motorways, increasingly the arteries of the nation? Can it possibly be left to the varying judgments of financially hard-pressed local authorities?
Does the Home Secretary agree that, in the conditions that we experienced on Saturday and Sunday, it is essential, for safety reasons among other things, to keep railways open? Was British Rail properly prepared? Is it, for example, reasonable that it should possess only two mechanical snow ploughs to clear more than 10,000 miles of track?
Why were some public services, particularly in the west midlands, so vulnerable? How is it that in some areas there had been no water for more than a day? Have water authorities no contingency plans for cuts in electricity, which we are told was the cause of the breakdown in water supplies?
Two questions on policy are directly related to the Government. Since the storm incurred costs on some local authorities that are beyond any reasonable contingency provision, what help is to be provided by central Government? What can the Home Secretary tell us about the thousands of homeless who, these days, sleep in the streets and shop doorways? Why, in particular, were the three special severe weather night shelters, which the Government announced only a few weeks ago would be available in London, not opened on Saturday and Sunday evenings? As it seems that hard-hit pensioners will not qualify for the special cold weather payment, what will the Government do to help them?

Mr. Baker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the helpful tenor of his questions. I understand from the chief constable of Nottinghamshire that Mr. Raymond Williams's car was one of many that were trapped in the Mansfield area and that Mr. Williams and a friend were inside the car. He was found dead at 2 pm on Saturday, but his passenger survived. The whole House will want to extend sympathy to Mr. Williams's family. I also pay tribute not only to the services but to individuals who made considerable efforts over the past weekend to overcome the severe weather.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about local and national responsibilities in such emergencies. On 15 June 1989, one of my predecessors made an announcement to the House. After a review of emergency services and the responsibilities of local authorities and others, one conclusion was that the prime responsibility for handling certain disasters should remain at local level, where resources and expertise are to be found and where mutual aid arrangements exist, for example, between neighbouring emergency services. I was in touch with various colleagues yesterday to determine whether extra help had to be provided. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not."] There was a great deal of co-ordination between the various emergency services and between emergency services in some of the private sector, particularly in the Thames valley.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced that he will review current arrangements for dealing with sudden weather crises, concentrating on the movement of passengers and freight, and he will consider comparable countries and report early in the new year. British Rail suspended services late on Saturday afternoon. It was rather wise to do that because


it meant that trains were not isolated in remote areas and were kept at stations. British Rail has responded vigorously and well to the crisis and restored services on virtually all lines today.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about water supplies. The disruption of water supplies was nearly always due to the failure of electricity supplies. That was not due to the failure of the auxiliary pumping equipment; It was due to the water authorities' failure to get through to the remote pumping stations to set off the auxiliary generators. Great efforts are being made today to reconnect services.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about what is known as the Bellwin scheme, under which the Government provide financial assistance towards emergency costs under arrangements that were agreed in 1982. The scheme is activated at Ministers' discretion when weather conditions are clearly exceptional and when, as a result, local authorities are likely to incur expenditure. When the scheme is activated, grant is paid to cover 85 per cent. of expenditure over a threshold that is currently £2 per charge payer. As the House knows, the scheme was activated in 1987 following the hurricane and again earlier this year following the severe winter storms. It is too early to know whether it will be activated this time.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about hostels in London and about the cold weather payments. Under what is called the severe weather initiative, various premises are made available, mainly in the centre of London, for the homeless. That scheme is triggered when the temperature has been below zero for three days. The cold weather payments are regulations that were agreed and announced a long time ago. The temperature must be at or below zero for seven days before the scheme is activated. The payments are £5 for each pensioner on income support and for parents of young children who are also on income support.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: As a result of the serious blockages on the M6 in a north-westerly direction, which lasted well into yesterday evening, will my right hon. Friend undertake to inquire into the role played by heavy goods vehicles in causing that blockage? Will he join me and other hon. Members in congratulating the West Midlands police and other forces on all that they were trying to do to rescue people and to bring help to both drivers and passenger vehicles in the area? I know about that from my own experience and wish to express my personal gratitude for all that the police did for myself and my family. However, I was concerned—I am sure that other hon. Members will also be concerned —to see row upon row of heavy goods vehicles that were three abreast on that stretch of motorway, including in the fast lane, for mile after mile after mile. There was simply no way in which the snow ploughs could even get through. The motorway was totally blocked.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Wareing—[Interruption.] Sorry, I was deflected. We had better have the answer first.

Mr. Baker: I spoke earlier today to the chief constable of the West Midlands police. He commented that, in his judgment, the weather warning was good, the road gritting was good, but the snow was much heavier and thicker than had been expected, affecting especially the M6, the M5 and the M42. The chief constable had his vehicles out on the road at a very early stage, but, as my hon. Friend the

Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) must have noticed because he was involved, lorries jack-knifed and caused blockages. Many vehicles were abandoned in the area and between 2,000 and 3,000 people had to be housed at the NEC overnight. I understand from the chief constable that about 100 vehicles are still abandoned. He wanted me to stress that he had received considerable help from Rover, which lent the West Midlands police 18 four-wheel drive vehicles. I, too, thank Rover for that.
The chief constable also made an interesting comment, which I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will want to bear in mind in his review of such emergencies. He questioned whether, in severe and sudden bad weather, motorways in urban areas should be closed. That cannot be done in rural areas, but it might be helpful in an area such as the west midlands. Clearly, my right hon. and learned Friend will want to consider that.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As one who survived 18 and a half hours on the M6 and M1 motorways, including 12 and a quarter hours in exactly the same place outside Birmingham, may I tell the Home Secretary that the Government's attitude is complacent? These are not new problems, as the Home Secretary suggested; they are old problems. What have the Government done to implement the 1979 report of the World Meteorological Organisation, which called for a proper national research programme into climate and weather conditions, or the 1986 report of the Technical Centre, which was financed by the Government, which called for a network of climatologists, economists and officials to plan resources for tackling such conditions? Is the matter simply to be left to free-market forces?

Mr. Baker: The Ministry of Defence, which has responsibility for the Meteorological Office, has reviewed its procedures. Certainly none of the police forces to which I have spoken today complained that there was not a sufficient lack of warning. There was a sufficient lack of warning.

Mr. Greville Janner: A sufficient lack of warning?

Mr. Baker: There was no lack of warning by the Met Office of what was about to happen. Like many people, I heard the news about the weather as I was driving around on Friday. There was good warning in this case and the Met Office should receive tribute for that. The chief constables of Thames Valley and of the West Midlands told me that they were surprised by the thickness and intensity of the snow, which added an unexpected factor.

Mr. Robert Banks: My right hon. Friend will be aware that North Yorkshire was particularly hard hit over the weekend and that several rural areas are still without electricity. Is not there a lesson to be learnt here? Buildings can be designed to withstand earthquakes, yet when we have storms, we have difficulty in maintaining our electricity supplies. More especially, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that planning permission for petrol stations includes a condition that stations must be provided with back-up generators to supply petrol to motorists who would otherwise be stranded when such conditions occur and electricity is cut off?

Mr. Baker: I understand that my hon. Friend was almost killed in the severe weather at the weekend. I am glad that the tree did not fall on the room in which he was sleeping. The point that he raised is an interesting one, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I am told that the major roads in Yorkshire are all clear but some minor roads in the dales are still blocked. The A59 in the south part of Yorkshire is now clear.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I extend condolences to families who have been bereaved during the storms. I also extend our thanks and congratulations to the emergency services—not least the linesmen who put themselves at particular risk to restore power. What process is there to ensure that detailed meteorological and other warnings are transmitted to those who have to deal with conditions at local level? On what time scale are such warnings transferred? On that point, I noticed that several hours after the blizzards hit Cornwall and Devon, the BBC and ITV broadcast that there was no snow there. It seems that at least that communications route does not work. Can the Secretary of State tell the House on what time scale decisions on the Bellwin scheme will be taken?

Mr. Baker: On the time scale within which advice is made available, my Department alerted the fire services and the police to the weather news on Friday. The general public was kept informed by radio and television. That is inevitable and it is probably the best way of doing so.
It is too early to say whether payments will be made under the Bellwin scheme. Clearly, the matter will be of some concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It usually takes some time to assess how much extra expenditure has been incurred. That will be the case in dealing with the problems at the weekend.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was unnecessary chaos in the section of the M6 that leads to Corley service station on Saturday? I was stationary for 18 hours, fortunately in the company of my wife and with a certain amount of good Burton beer that I keep with me for emergencies. But there can be no excuse for the authorities not closing the M6 when they saw the trouble that was happening. The trouble had clearly begun a good hour or so before I joined the motorway. There was no gritting of any sort. There were no snowploughs.
I did not see a police officer for 15 hours, and when one arrived he had no idea what was happening. No attempt was made to release the traffic that had been travelling eastward towards the M1 to the entirely empty opposite side of the M6 until 2 am. That reveals a disgraceful lack of co-ordination among local authorities, the police and whoever else may be responsible. Will my right hon. Friend look into that? There are still hundreds of vehicles in the area. Goodness knows how many of those in them were diabetic, unwell or old, who had no access to lavatories and telephones. The whole thing was disgraceful. The shortcomings could be corrected if my right hon. Friend were to devote his attention to ensuring that there is no lack of co-ordination in future.

Mr. Baker: I shall draw the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend to the attention of the chief constables in

the areas that he mentioned, including the way in which traffic was controlled. My hon. and learned Friend underlined the idea that was put to me earlier by a chief constable, which was that when those difficulties occur, consideration should be given to early closure of the motorways. I hasten to add that I refer to those in urban areas. It would be much more difficult to close those in more remote rural areas.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend's journey, with his wife, was necessary. The chief constable of Thames Valley has told me, however, that his officers dug out quite a few elderly people from their cars on Saturday. Those people, having seen that it was a snowy day, had gone out for a run.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Home Secretary investigate as a matter of some urgency a simple precaution? I, too, was stuck on the M6 for 10 or 12 hours on Saturday. I hasten to add that I was not in the car of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Had it not been for a group of young soldiers who were in two coaches, who, with aid of lorry drivers, rescued hundreds of motorists, and who received great thanks, matters would have been much worse. It was noticeable at junction 2 that there was an absence of any drawing vehicles to drag skidded lorries on to the slip road and out of the way. If that had been done, hundreds of motorists, some with young families, would have been released much earlier. Surely it is not a great difficulty to place rescue vehicles at motorway junctions.

Mr. Baker: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of police officers and of the local authorities concerned. A substantial number of snowploughs are available. I recall that about 280 are available for work on the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were they?"] Hon. Members must appreciate that when there are severe weather conditions, one of the difficulties is physically getting the equipment to the right place. As I said, about 280 snowploughs are available. They are financed by the Department of Transport. Their purpose is to deal with the conditions that hon. Members have talked about on the main motorway network.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend pass on to the water authorities the suggestion that they should invest in generators so that in future water supplies are not cut off? In every theatre in the land, for example, there is an automatic switch from mains electricity to an auxiliary supply. Most people find it incomprehensible that the companies do not have such a system.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will try to ascertain why people were blaming the failure to anticipate the intensity of the snowstorm. If it had been anticipated, would things have been different? Finally, perhaps some of our colleagues might consider using a train instead of driving. If their train had been stopped, it would not have remained stationary for 18 hours.

Mr. Baker: The best advice that one can give to anyone when severe weather is forecast is to stay at home and not to travel unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Many people were travelling who were not in that position. As for the maintenance of motorways and trunk roads, about £24 million has been allocated for 1991. About 283 snowploughs and 23 snow blowers are dedicated to winter


maintenance on 1,600 miles of motorway. About £4·2 million has been provided in the 1990–91 budget for a continuing programme to renew the fleet of winter maintenance vehicles.
My hon. Friend also asked about auxiliary power supplies to water pumping stations. Some of those stations are extremely remote and they tend to have auxiliary generators, but in order to be used, they usually require someone to turn up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If they can be operated in a way other than that, I shall draw it to the attention of the water companies.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the business before the House. We have a statement after this, so I shall allow two more questions from each side and then we must move on.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Secretary of State aware of the havoc that the storm caused to the county of Leicestershire? Will he now please ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to state that he will give help to the county council and the city council because they have suffered from cuts in their rates, in their poll tax—call it what you will—and they have not got the money to cope? They need that money. Will he also ensure that an inquiry is made to discover why, because one substation broke down, thousands of people in the county were left without water? Why should they be like the ancient mariner, who had
Water, water every where Nor any drop to drink"?

Mr. Baker: I shall draw such points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman as I think worthy to the attention of the relevant authorities. So far we have not had any requests from local authorities, either district councils or county councils, for assistance and we shall have to see how the situation develops.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I say that I am astonished at the lack of foresight of the male Members of this establishment? Having heard that snow was forecast in large measure on Saturday and Sunday and knowing that the King's Cross Railways Bill revival motion, which is of considerable importance to my constituency, was on the Order Paper for today, I simply set my alarm for 3.30 am, left Lancaster at 3.45 and arrived here in good order.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that neither snow nor ice will deter my hon. Friend, who is a credit to us all.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what he said about local authorities? As he said, the cold weather has come early, and it has been sharp and drastic. Local authorities such as my own, which has been poll tax-capped, have already reduced their budgets for road maintenance, particularly in rural areas. They have now been forced to make great inroads into that reduced budget. Would not it be helpful to contact all local authorities to assure them that they will not be poll tax-capped purely and simply for spending extra on coping with the weather conditions?

Mr. Baker: It depends entirely on how local authorities spend their money. We are talking about money in the budget for the current year and the necessary provisions will have been made. We have not had any requests from any local authorities at this stage. Such maintenance is one of the services that must be provided by those local authorities.

Mr. Andy Stewart: My right hon. Friend is well aware that the whole of Nottinghamshire was without electricity for 24 hours and that the north of the county was without it for 48 hours—even now some villages are without electricity. I join my right hon. Friend in thanking the emergency services, especially the East Midlands electricity board workers who, while we were freezing in our homes, were freezing on the job in arctic conditions. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stewart: May I also say how much we appreciate the work of the water authorities, but will my right hon. Friend remind them that, in future, we could do with standby generators to enable people to receive water at least?

Mr. Baker: I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to ensure that Hansard conveys what he meant, not what he said. My hon. Friend is certainly right to raise the issue of electricity supplies in the east midlands, the most severely affected region. The East Midlands electricity board has done a magnificent job in restoring the supply to many hundreds of thousands of its customers. It has had help from other regional companies, specialist contractors and the Army. I pay tribute to what they have done and I hope that the great majority of people will have their electricity supplies linked up today or tomorrow.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Uruguay Round)

4 pm

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a statement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay round negotiations that took place in Brussels last week.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom, together with Ministers from more than 100 countries, to negotiate a package of trade liberalising measures. That followed over four years of negotiations covering 15 subject areas. After four and a half days of discussion, it was decided that the negotiations could not be brought to a conclusion by the end of the week, but should be continued in Geneva, with a view to completing them early in the new year.
The United Kingdom has consistently argued for a substantial outcome to the round. The world economy is slowing down and urgently needs the non-inflationary stimulus that only a successful round can provide. As a major exporter, the United Kingdom stands to benefit more than most from open world markets and to lose more than most from the failure of the round. We want to see the GATT system maintained and strengthened as it provides the best guarantee against protectionism. We stand to gain in particular from extending the GATT system to the new areas of services, intellectual property and investment.
My right hon. Friend and I made strenuous efforts, both within the Community and outside, to urge flexibility on all sides, to discourage premature suspension of the talks and to help secure such progress as was made in the final stages of the week. The European Community was united in wanting to see a successful conclusion to the round. There was recognition that to achieve that, further movement was needed in all sectors, including agriculture. But the conference regrettably did not get down to serious negotiations on the crucial issue of agriculture until too late in the week to enable the process to be completed. The blame cannot be laid entirely at the door of any one participant. All needed to move. They started too late, and moved too little. We remain convinced that agreement is possible in this sector, given more time and the necessary political will from all participants.
I was disappointed that agreement was not reached in Brussels last week. But the round is not over. There is too much at stake to allow it to fail. The outlines of a substantial package emerged at Brussels. Impressive progress was made in many sectors—including some of the most difficult and complex, such as textiles and intellectual property. It would be a major achievement to bring agriculture and textiles under GATT disciplines for the first time and extend the GATT system to include services, intellectual property and investment. We can still achieve those aims.
What we need to do now is consolidate the progress that has already been made and to use the next few weeks to build on it. The United Kingdom will continue to play an active part in that. At the European Council next weekend, and during his visit to Washington later this month, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will press

participants to show the necessary political will to resolve the outstanding issues and ensure an outcome from which the whole world will benefit.

Ms. Joyce Quin: The failure to reach an agreement in the GATT round is serious and the only sign of hope is that there is, at least, a commitment to resume talks. Will the Secretary of State give us details on the likely timetable of resumed talks and a few more details about what discussions the Government will be involved in between now and when the talks begin? The Secretary of State mentioned the Prime Minister's likely involvement. Would not it have been advisable for the Prime Minister to be involved before now, for example by having urgent talks with Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand last week to try to avoid the breakdown that subsequently occurred?
Will the Secretary of State say more about the attitude taken by himself and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the talks? We know that the Government and the Conservative party are badly split on Europe, with one faction trying to stand in splendid isolation and the other faction trying to be a loyal member of the club. However, the common agricultural policy is not the issue on which to be a loyal member of the club. We feel strongly that the Secretary of State should not support the CAP up to the hilt in the negotiations, but ought to argue for a change of attitude by the Community and in favour of fundamental reforms.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Community's agricultural offer of a 30 per cent. cut would in reality be only a 15 per cent. cut, given that 1986 was taken as the base year? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what base year the Government favour?
Why did the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, together with the Community, fail to table a precise figure on cuts in export subsidies—which cause the greatest problems for world trade? We are not against supporting a vital industry such as agriculture, but the present form of CAP policies is causing problems in world trade as a whole.
The Secretary of State made only a brief reference to the textile industry. Can he guarantee that, if textiles and clothing are brought under GATT rules, those rules will be strengthened to ensure fair trade? We are particularly anxious that they should include a strengthened safeguards clause, anti-dumping provisions, design and copyright protection and a means of opening hitherto closed markets to United Kingdom textile exporters.
If the talks do not resume, or if resumed negotiations fail, what will the Government's attitude be towards drawing up a new multi-fibre arrangement or renewed bilateral agreements?
We welcome the progress on services, but can the Secretary of State give more information about outstanding problems in that sector—particularly given its vital importance to the British economy?
The Secretary of State made no mention of developing countries and that was a remarkable omission. What action was taken in the GATT round to ensure that the poorest developing countries will not lose out? Also, is not it the case that many important issues were largely ignored in the four wasted years of the Uruguay round? I refer to, for example, the environmental aspects of world trade, which concern many right hon. and hon. Members, and social considerations, seeking to ensure that a trading


system emerges that does not rely on exploitation or appalling working conditions in the poorest countries. Those are, of course, huge issues and it may be argued that it will be difficult to introduce them into the negotiations at this late stage. However, will the Government at least press that future rounds take account of environmental and social considerations?
Meanwhile, the priority must be to break the deadlock. We urge the Government to make more determined efforts to bring about changes in the Community's attitude to agriculture in particular. By doing so, they will avoid the risk of an even deeper recession at home and prolonged recession throughout the world.

Mr. Lilley: I welcome the hon. Lady's recognition of the seriousness of the postponement and prolongation of the talks. She asked about the likely timetable. The British Government want the talks to resume as soon as possible, and we shall be discussing with Mr. Dunkel and others the means of achieving that. It has been suggested that the talks will resume in mid-January.
The hon. Lady asked also about further discussions. I will be urging in personal discussions and telephonically with our European partners an early resumption of the talks, and maximum flexibility when they do resume. I mentioned earlier that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will he raising the matter at the European Council and at his meeting in Washington. The hon. Lady suggested that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should have arranged meetings with President Mitterrand and Herr Kohl. In fact, we were closely in touch with the French and German representatives and in our discussions with the Community we succeeded in securing flexibility in interpreting the Community offer. That possibility was always available to my right hon. Friend, should it have been needed.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) made a little joke about the alleged split in the Conservative party. I assume that she did that to cover up the difficulties that she clearly finds in her own party, not least on this issue.
The Government firmly believe in freedom of trade. We believe that Europe is based on greater freedom of trade. We are wholeheartedly behind the single market, the essence of which is the removal of barriers to trade at an even more advanced scale than that envisaged within the GATT round, and we argued strongly that our partners in Europe should he flexible on all fronts.
The hon. Lady urges me not to be loyal to the common agricultural policy. I am not sure in which camp, in the supposed divisions within the Conservative party, she places me. I am anxious to hear. We urged upon the Community a reformulation of proposals put forward on agriculture to ensure maximum flexibility and to enable us to meet the concerns of other parties within the GATT round, as far as possible. By and large, that message was taken, but, as I said in my statement, it was too little and too late.
The hon. Lady asked for confirmation that the 30 per cent. offer amounts in practice to only 15 per cent. She is correct in saying that the 30 per cent. dates from the beginning of the round. It was agreed at the mid-term talks that that should be the base starting date for cuts in subsidies. We naturally support the agreement reached then—it seems to be a sensible basis for putting forward offers for cuts and subsidies.
In most of the discussions held last week in Brussels, the pressure was not on the Community to increase the 30 per cent. figure, but to reformulate it in such a way as to assure other parties that it would feed through to a reduction in export subsidies, as well as a reduction in totals. That is something which we did support and advocate.
As regards textiles, I can confirm that progress was made. It is waiting to be finalised—since nothing is final in these rounds until everything is finalized—but progress was made on strengthened rules and disciplines and on greater market access for textiles. The worst outcome for the textile industry would be a total collapse of the GATT round. The present MFA ends in July 1991 and, until we agree, there is nothing to replace it. At present, an outline agreement for a transitional phase of about 10 years could result if we conclude the whole round successfully.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked about outstanding problems with services. In the early days of our discussions it was difficult to get any movement from the United States towards accepting that the most-favoured nation principle should extend to all areas, and that all services should be included within the framework agreement. Towards the end of the talks the United States took some steps towards that and we believe that we could have progressed further had the negotiations continued, and we may do so if they resume.
The hon. Lady also mentioned developing countries. I recognise the important part that they have played in these talks so far and their importance for a successful outcome. One of the contributions that the European Community made during the negotiations was to improve its offer on tropical products. That was partly a result of urging by this country and it was well received by the developing countries.
Conditions of employment in less-developed countries are primarily a matter for the countries themselves. If we exclude their products from our markets, we do little to benefit people in less-developed countries. Often, that is simply a hidden form of protectionism, which I do not believe that any Conservative Member would like us to resort to.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. As we have had numerous debates on this matter, could hon. Members confine their questions to the breakdown of talks and not mention issues which have been debated previously?

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend prevail on the Leader of the House to find time for an early debate on the breakdown of the GATT negotiations, as that is a serious and timely matter? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the breakdown of these talks is primarily due to the common agricultural policy, the worst feature of which are export subsidies, which constitute an abuse to the rest of the world and to trade with the rest of the world? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he believes that, apart from ourselves, the Community has the political will, of which he spoke earlier, to bring about a satisfactory renegotiation of the common agricultural policy so that the GATT negotia-tions can continue?

Mr. Lilley: I will certainly convey to our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House my hon. Friend's point about the importance of an early debate on the subject. I


do not think that the breakdown of the talks can be attributed to one party exclusively. I was implicitly critical of those who were slow to move and offer concessions and whose concessions were not great enough. In the course of the week, however, the Community did offer to adopt a more flexible stance—in particular, to try to satisfy the concerns of others about export subsidies, a subject which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is central to the success or failure of the round. We shall continue to press that point.
I also pointed out to the one or two Community members that were not averse to a suspension of the talks that any such suspension would probably increase the cost of success in the future, as everyone would have to make additional concessions to purchase a resumption of negotiations and, once they had been resumed, further concessions would be in order. I suggested that those who were most willing to countenance a breakdown should perhaps be most forthcoming in making concessions.

Mr. Peter Shore: This is a really appalling example of the dangers to world trade, and to producers in both developing and developed countries, of what can be described only as short-sighted European protectionism. Indeed, it is the worst possible example in relation to agricultural policy and agricultural trade.
The Secretary of State will have to accept that he has no power in this regard, as agricultural and trade policies have been handed over to the Commission and the Community for the past, heaven knows, 17 years. Will he at least ensure, however, that the matter is raised and discussed in the European Council meeting later this week? Will he also raise the whole question of agricultural policy, under the heading "subsidiarity", in the political union talks, so that we can discuss seriously the undoubted benefits of leaving to the European Community no further part of agricultural policy that ought to be resumed under national control?

Mr. Lilley: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the role played by Community member states is different from that played by other countries that participate directly in the negotiations. We negotiate through the Commission and empower it, broadly, to negotiate on our behalf.
I agree that it is something of a paradox that countries whose Heads of Government seem most willing, in principle, to hand over sovereignty to the Community seem to send to the negotiations Ministers who are most reluctant to empower the Commission to look after their national interests and who seem anxious to claw back control over the Commission. That, however, is one of the rich paradoxes of Community life.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to pay too much attention to the comments made by the "Euro-mats" on the Labour Front Bench? They, of course, would limply agree with anything that was the edict of Brussels, and therefore have no standing whatever in these matters.
More to the point, had my right hon. Friend been negotiating with full negotiating powers on behalf of the British Government, would his policy have been in any way different from that with which he was compelled to go along in Brussels last week?

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that, in that happy circumstance, success would have ensued. It is only fair to point out, however, that in general the United Kingdom was offering strong support to the Commissioners who were negotiating on our behalf and seeking to give them the maximum leeway in the broad negotiating envelope that we had developed, so that they could reach agreement with the other side rather than placing obstacles in their way and shackles on their freedom of negotiating power.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I press the Secretary of State on the question of textiles? It is difficult to grasp the detail. I should be obliged if he would say a word about the linkage between strengthened rules and disciplines and access to third countries' markets. It might be helpful to put a draft of the text in the Library, so that hon. Members can see for themselves what has been at least tentatively agreed.
In the event of no agreement being reached by July 1991, if the MFA flies off, will that mean no controls after that date, and does the same apply to bilateral agreements that go beyond July 1991?

Mr. Lilley: To respond to the hon. Gentleman's last question, if there were no successful outcome to the round —I hope very much that there will be—the CAP would terminate automatically—[HON. MEMBERS: "CAP?"] I am sorry, the multi-fibre arrangement: that was wishful thinking. The MFA will lapse automatically at the end of July. Textiles will then automatically be treated in the same way as other goods. Bilateral arrangements are largely outlawed under the ordinary GATT agreements. GATT's purpose is to try to phase out and do without such things. I shall try to put any papers that are available in the Library for hon. Members to peruse, though some of them are opaque and include many square bracket entries where agreement has yet to be reached.
On textiles generally, we believe that considerable progress has been made in securing intellectual property rights, which will be of benefit to textiles in outlawing piracy of designs, and so on. That will come into effect before the full phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement. There should be increased access to overseas markets through tariff reductions and the removal of non-tariff barriers. There should be an improved safeguard mechanism, and other rules and disciplines will come into effect well before the phasing out of the MFA— [Interruption.] Well, it does not need to be a condition. It will be there, before the phasing out of the MFA.

Mr. Steve Norris: Given that my right hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that some of the European Community delegates to the talks seemed to be remarkably unwilling to allow the Commission to negotiate on their behalf, does he consider that that might have some interesting ramifications when one takes into account the proposed European central bank?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was an interesting experience to participate in last week's negotiations. It is hard to believe that those who are so reluctant to concede sovereignty on a matter which, in principle, has been within the Community's competence for the past two or three decades would be willing to hand over monetary policy to a truly independent central bank.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Minister accept that it comes as no surprise to


those of us who have been concerned about the detail and the political framework of the common agricultural policy for a number of years that the talks should have broken down, partly on the basis of failure to reach agreement on a common CAP position between the Community and the other participants? Does he also accept that, in a sense, the European Community brought about the breakdown because of its failure to renegotiate the framework of its CAP? Those of us who share the Minister's view about export subsidies are equally concerned about establishing a framework that will maintain agricultural support in terms of income, environmental and landscape objectives and also the food production objectives of the common agricultural policy. Will the Minister initiate such an attempt within the Community?

Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is attending a meeting of the Community's Agriculture Council. Doubtless the member states will consider the consequences of the temporary suspension of the round. Such implications as those that the hon. Gentleman raises will be considered. I still think that it is wrong, however, to attribute the breakdown of the talks entirely to the Community or entirely to the common agricultural policy. Everyone must take their share of the blame. Many of the parties were reluctant to make concessions until too late in the week. When the Community showed flexibility, others were unwilling to recognise that it was making movement. There is only limited freedom of action for the Community, given the need to provide some sustenance of farmers' incomes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the European trade Ministers gave sufficient flexibility to the Commission to reach agreement? Will he confirm that he believes that if the negotiations had continued there could have been a settlement? Will he also confirm that the Government's policy is still that if subsidies to farmers, who face very difficult circumstances, are cut off, there will be adequate compensation for them?

Mr. Lilley: Yes, I believe that we allowed our negotiators considerable flexibility. Had the talks continued and we were arguing against suspension, it might have been possible for other members to draw out that flexibility and to achieve concessions valuable to themselves and acceptable to the Community. It will probably now require greater flexibility by the Community and everyone else to resume negotiations and to bring them to a successful conclusion early in the new year. We shall have to show greater flexibility than if we had concluded negotiations this week.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spotted the common agricultural policy as the problem because that policy is predicated on a political ratchet: first, the decoupling of taxes from control and, secondly, the fact that majority qualified voting has been in operation for 17 years makes it difficult for one nation to make a change? Does he agree that embarking on extended majority voting and embracing principles of common policy without considering what effect they would have on the rest of the world and on each producing state is a terrible warning for the next week or two?

Mr. Lilley: There is considerable logic, as always, in the hon. Member's position. I have no doubt that those who find the operation of the common agricultural policy unacceptable will be reluctant to see those principles extended more widely.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall need to be twice as flexible in future, first, to get talks going again and, secondly, to bring them to a successful conclusion? Does he further agree that France and Ireland were largely responsible for the breakdown of talks? Whatever the outcome of the talks, will he make it quite clear to those Governments that in future British taxpayers' money will not be used to bail out part-time, peasant and inefficient farmers in those countries?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend's first point is an extremely good one, which I hope will be recognised in the Community and among other negotiating partners to the GATT round. I do not want to point the finger at any countries involved in the talks, but those who were most willing to accept suspension and most reluctant to show flexibility should perhaps recognise that, in the next round, when greater flexibility will be needed because of the suspension, they should be the most forthcoming in coughing up the proposed concessions from their budgets and special interests.

Mr. David Trimble: I appreciate that the common agricultural policy is very much less than ideal and realise the extent to which it, and reluctance to reform it, led to this interruption, but does the Minister realise that there are matters of substance behind the concerns of many people in this country and in other countries about small agricultural units? Does he appreciate that there is a need to find some other way of providing support? Could he perhaps persuade our Common Market partners to reconsider the old British system of agricultural support that existed prior to 1972? Would not it be easier to operate in the GATT rounds and negotiations? Could not the Government consider taking the initiative of persuading our European partners of the advisability of reforming the CAP in that way?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—I am sure that the House wishes to join me in congratulating him on his elevation to responsibility for agricultural matters in the Province—has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will be discussing them with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There will have to be changes as a result of a successful GATT round and, indeed, if it were to fail, in the evolution of agriculture policy. The hon. Member's ideas will have to be taken into account in that. Given the pressures that have already been felt by the agricultural community in this country, I recognise, like him, that there are constraints on what can be done. We cannot ignore that.

Sir Hector Monro: In the same way that the textiles industry is concerned about the future, so, too, is agriculture. With falling farm incomes and the greater responsibility for the environment that is being laid on agriculture, how can one accept further cuts?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes the point that I was making earlier: the agricultural community has had to


bear considerable pressures, which we bore in mind in the negotiations. We sought, within the existing offer on the table, to try to make it more attractive to other partners in the GATT round without adversely affecting the position of farmers at home. We believe that that was possible and that, to a large extent, it will be possible in future.

Mr. Win Griffiths: As the Minister admitted that further concessions will have to be made, will he expand a little on the alternative methods of supporting agriculture that will be necessary? Given his remarks about the need to reduce export subsidies and the high prices that the food-processing industry pays for raw materials in this country, what help will be given to that industry, which has to rely on restitution when it sells abroad?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should be under no misapprehension. I was not suggesting that additional cuts would have to be made on top of the 30 per cent. cut in export subsidies. Towards the end of the week, we discussed some way of ensuring that a 30 per cent. cut in total subsidies by the EC is reflected quasi-automatically in a 30 per cent. or similar reduction in export subsidies. We discussed other assurances to provide that, in years of falling agricultural prices, there is no ballooning of export subsidies, through volumes or through financial limits on the total amount of money going into those subsidies.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was careful to get into the basic EC agreement an assurance that any reduction should be non-discriminatory so that there is no discriminatory reduction in subsidies for processed food at the expense of basic products.

Mr. Conal Gregory: As the food and drinks industry is the largest manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend confirm that when an agreement is finally reached it will not jeopardise the £2 billion of exports of food and drink to non-EC countries and the 60,000 jobs in various places, including great centres such as York?

Mr. Lilley: That is certainly a good point. We shall try to ensure in the agreement by Community partners that any change in the support mechanism will be nondiscriminatory, particularly in terms of the support available for exports of processed food products.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister will recognise the importance of the textile industry to our manufacturing base. What contingency plans has he made in the event of the talks breaking down and nothing resulting for textiles? For instance, has he taken note of the four-point plan for textiles proposed by the textiles division of the Transport and General Workers Union? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some hope for the industry and its employees?

Mr. Lilley: I am still strongly of the opinion that we can and must achieve a successful outcome to this round, not just because a sudden ending of MFA would have severe effects on and be unacceptable to many countries. We do not think that it would be sensible to start working on the assumption that the round will fail. We shall do all in our power to achieve a successful outcome. If we fail, we shall have to pick up the pieces.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Given my right hon. Friend's clarity of vision, does he agree that the alleged 30 per cent. offer made by the EEC was little more than a bogus fraud, because a 15 per cent. cut had allegedly already occurred and because, in respect of the other 15 per cent., the Council of Ministers and the Commission promised fully to compensate farmers for any reduction in protection? Bearing in mind that the EEC's budget for 1991—which has just been agreed and which, at £23 billion, represents the Community's highest-ever expenditure—seems likely to be broken, how can my right hon. Friend have the slightest optimism about the idea that we are likely to make progress? Is not this simply a disaster for British jobs?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend always shows a daunting knowledge of these figures, but the fact is that a 30 per cent. cut over 10 years—even if part is already under our belt—is a considerable reduction in subsidies. If the world can bring agriculture fully within the GATT round, it will be a major achievement. There will need to be further rounds before we can achieve the degree of development of GATT disciplines within the agricultural sector that has been achieved elsewhere. It will be a significant prize to get agriculture within the GATT round and we shall work hard towards that end.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Minister realise that his comments will have set alarm bells ringing in the minds of the men and women who depend on the British textile industry for their livelihoods and who are most anxious about the job losses that are now taking place? Will he give us a clear assurance that there is no prospect of the British Government's agreeing to the phasing out of the MFA, even over a 10-year period, unless the so-called five safeguards are incorporated under GATT? Will he also give a firm assurance that there is no question of the British Government's once again regarding the British textile industry as expendable?

Mr. Lilley: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of that. The outline agreement on textiles that was approaching completion before the round was suspended was the sort of agreement which the British textile industry could have lived with and accepted. It envisaged a transitional period of about 10 years and that is not out of line with what the industry has asked for. It also envisaged considerable improvements in respect of intellectual property, rules and disciplines and market access, although the extent of those improvements will not become absolutely clear until we can finalise the whole round. Nevertheless, they were the sort of thing that the industry wanted. Far from coming in gradually as the MFA was phased out, many of those improvements would take effect more or less immediately and that would be a rather better outcome than that for which many in the industry hoped.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The Minister will be aware of the consequences for third-world economies of the failure of the round. Will not last week's shambles fuel those third-world countries' fears of a Fortress Europe? Is not the tragedy of all this that our traditional trading partners in the third world may well be forced into the arms of rival trading blocs?

Mr. Lilley: The less-developed countries certainly stand to gain significantly from a successful round and to lose


substantially from a failure to conclude the round. That was constantly in the minds of both the British Government and, I believe, the other parties to the negotiations. I held a number of meetings, including meetings with some of the less-developed countries. In general, although apprehensive about the prospect of trading blocs closing in on themselves—to which my hon. Friend referred—they believed that a successful round would be a major factor in improving their economies. The inclusion of agriculture in the agreement for the first time and the fact that more of the rules and disciplines of GATT will be brought to bear on their economies—something of which they were initially apprehensive—must in the long run benefit their economies, as it has benefited the economies of developed countries.

Mr. Graham Allen: Was not the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) right to smell a Eurorat? Will the Minister admit that there has been a significant—one might say, "Major"—U-turn in the past couple of weeks? Three weeks ago, under the former Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we had a bellicose defence of the American position and free trade, whereas we now have a whispered compliance with the aims of the French and Germans and other farming interests in Europe. That compliance will cost the average British family £14 a week —the amount needed to support the common agricultural policy. Is not that a little too much to pay just to give new Eurocredentials to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Lilley: The Government's position has been consistent throughout. We have sought flexibility within the Community and from other parties to the negotiations and, to the extent that we have attained flexibility in the Community's position and achieved some movement on services from the United States, we were anxious to draw the two sides together. We regret that the talks were suspended when some movement, at least, was being shown on both fronts.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have reached this stage with agricultural subsidies because of our failure to define exactly what a farmer is? Everyone seems afraid to tackle a situation whereby British farmers suffer because, in France and Germany, people who would not even be called allotment-holders here are called farmers? They often have jobs in factories during the day and scrabble in the soil at the weekends, but, none the less, receive huge subsidies. Is not it about time that the Common Market got down to defining what a farmer is, so that we can cut those outrageous subsidies? We must have the courage to do that. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seemed to say yesterday that it was the Americans' fault. It is not. The fault lies with us and only we can solve the problem. The new Government must have the courage to do that.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend's point lies behind the insistence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that any changes in agricultural support should be non-discriminatory. We are determined that British farmers, who, as my hon. Friend said, are genuine, should not lose out when new forms of support are developed which might otherwise have been oriented to the kind of farmers that he attributed largely to

continental countries. We are determined that that should not be the case and that any support arrangements should benefit British farmers fully, along with any help directed to continental farmers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: With regard to intellectual property rights, what was the thinking on the issue of the patenting of living organisms which is a matter of enormous importance to the pharmaceutical industry? Some of us believe that there is a danger of a lawyers' paradise being created around the real interests of innovation.
In connection with tropical forest products, does the Minister accept that those of us who were fortunate enough to participate in the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Zaire received the impression from Ministers in Kinshasa that too much emphasis was placed on policies that would actually be detrimental to the preservation of the rain forests? Before advantages are given to tropical forest products, will the Community be sure that those are not disadvantages for the rain forest, of which Zaire has 46 per cent. of that which remains in Africa?

Mr. Lilley: The outline agreement on TRIPs— trade-related aspects of intellectual property—envisages that each country shall enforce in its own patent law and other rights. It accepts that those have been beneficial in encouraging the development of new products and, by the same logic, will be beneficial in encouraging the development of new plants and other agricultural products. With regard to the importance of rain forests, I am not sure what provisions in the embryonic GATT round the hon. Gentleman believes would apply to them.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: While we all welcome the notes of flexibility and qualified optimism that my right hon. Friend has struck from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, does not he also fear that the world could be on the edge of an era of trade wars particularly if the Americans begin to use their formidable section 301 powers of their trade legislation to retaliate against what they rightly see as excessive agricultural exports subsidies by the EEC? In that context, are not the discussions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Council of Ministers at the weekend absolutely crucial? How can those discussions have great hope of success when agricultural subsidies and the GATT talks have a much lower priority on the agenda for discussions than what many of us consider less important matters, such as economic and monetary union and even political union?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly about the danger of the outbreak of trade wars if the round were to fail absolutely. If that happens, we should not simply forgo the benefits of what would have been a very important round; we should probably also slip backwards with greater use of grey area measures, as they are called, and voluntary restraint arrangements. We might also slip into a trade war and, as my hon. Friend said, there might be resort to super-301 rights which give rise to great antagonism among other GATT participants.
With regard to this weekend's meeting between European Heads of Government, my hon. Friend is right to state that this time the EC must recognise the importance to the Community, as one of the world's great trading blocs, of a successful outcome to the round. That


must be given appropriate priority in the discussions—over and above, if need be, other matters that my hon. Friend would consider less important.

Terrorism

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the new phase of IRA terrorism and intimidation which surfaced this weekend in County Fermanagh and which has forced both Roman Catholic and Protestant businesses to insert public notices in the local paper announcing that, under threat from the IRA, they will not in the future do any business with or serve Her Majesty's security forces.
The matter is specific. I have a copy of the newspaper involved at hand. It contains a series of adverts and I will quote from several of them. One from a Roman Catholic business states:
At the request of the Fermanagh Brigade of the Provisional IRA, I Barry McCormack Proprietor of Silver Dollar Take Aways in Lisnaskea and Irvinestown will not be serving members of the Security Forces.
Another advert, from a Protestant business, states:
The Proprietors of Henry's Filling Station, Lisnaskea, wish to announce that they can no longer welcome business from the Security Forces.
Another advert, this time from Traynor's cafe at Maguiresbridge, which is a Roman Catholic business, states:
Owing to a phone call we can no longer serve the Security Forces.
Another advert from a Protestant business, W. J. Kennedy at Magheraveely, states:
We wish to make it publicly known that we will no longer serve the security forces.
The matter is specific. Had it happened on this side of the water, there would have been a furore in the House.
The matter is also important. Anyone who reads Irish history knows the power of boycott. The terrorists will escalate this weapon in their armoury. Terrorists always prevail when law enforcement powers are not exercised by the legal Government. Many people who are against the IRA and all its works have had to bow because they are on record as saying that they went to the authorities, who told them that unfortunately they could not protect them.
This is a matter of life and death. It strikes at those good and true men and women who serve in the security forces in Northern Ireland. They put their lives at risk to serve all the community and they are being struck at in this way by murderous thugs.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the new phase of IRA terrorism and intimidation which surfaced this weekend in County Fermanagh and which has forced both Roman Catholic and Protestant businesses to insert public notices in the local press announcing that, under threat from the IRA, they will not in the future do any business with or serve Her Majesty's security forces.
I listened with deep concern to the hon. Gentleman but, as he knows, my decision is whether to give the matter priority over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. In this case, I regret that the matter does not fall within the criteria laid down under the Standing Order


and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. Nevertheless, I hope that he will find other opportunities to debate the matter.

Electricity Supplies (East Midlands)

Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Home Secretary's statement in response to the private notice question about the severe weather condition to refer to the electricity crisis in the east midlands.
In the East Midlands electricity board area 300,000 customers have had their supplies cut. Some of those supplies have been cut for two and a half days and some people will not get their supplies reconnected for at least another four days, and that includes my constituents in Barrow Hill.
The cut in electricity supply has caused a further crisis at water pumping stations and many of the areas do not have water supplies. That massive crisis was not referred to in the Home Secretary's statement in response to the private notice question. A statement should have been made by a Minister from the Department of Energy, which should be co-ordinating the problems facing the East Midlands electricity board. That board is undoubtedly doing the best it can in difficult circumstances, but it faces a massive problem.
If the crisis had occurred in the south, I am sure that we would have been told that Bellwin scheme money would be available. Such statements should have been made in respect of Derbyshire county council to help it run its services.
It is essential that electricity supplies be resumed as early as possible. The disruption has been caused by cables falling under the weight of the snow. Trees have come down and pylons have been destroyed. That has led to a massive problem. Nearly 750,000 people in the east midlands area have been affected and see no hope in the future. A Minister should come to the House and say something to ensure that the full resources of the Government are directed at resolving a massive problem in the east midlands area and in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire in particular.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20,

for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the electricity supply crisis in the east midlands.
I in no way underestimate the importance of what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I must give him the same answer as I gave the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I regret that his application does not meet the criteria laid down under the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. However, no doubt he will have other opportunities to bring the matter to the House.

Parliamentary Conference

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday the House debated the forthcoming European Council and intergovernmental conferences to take place in Rome. During that debate reference was made to unofficial versions of the declaration of a parliamentary conference which took place there recently and which came to a conclusion on 30 November. I wonder whether you could tell hon. Members when we are likely to get the official text of that declaration and whether it will be available to the House prior to the important conferences of next weekend.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for raising that matter. I received a personal copy of the document this morning and I have arranged to have it placed in the Library of the House so that hon. Members may see it.

BILL PRESENTED

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL

Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide protection in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which the United Kingdom is a party: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Hyperbolic Systems) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Orders of the Day — Road Traffic Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the first time I have had the pleasure of appearing at the Dispatch Box in my new incarnation——

Mr. John Prescott: I will give you 12 months.

Mr. Rifkind: I start as I mean to go on.
I cannot claim to have been other than surprised at the responsibilities that I have been given. Indeed, I could not help but recollect the splendid words from a sonnet by Wordsworth:
Surprised by joy—impatient as the Wind I turned to share the transport".
My joy was enhanced by the realisation that, as a result of that translation, I would enjoy the company of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for many weeks, months and perhaps years to come—a veritable transport of delight.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). During his period as Secretary of State for Transport he achieved a great deal. He not only identified the great priority that must be given to the subject but ensured that the resources which will be available over the next few years will be substantial. My task and that of my hon. Friends has been made much easier by my right hon. Friend's achievements.
Today we are to consider the details of the Road Traffic Bill, but perhaps I could precede my comments by one or two brief remarks about wider transport matters which arise out of the legislation. I begin by commenting on what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. Arising out of the events of the past two or three days, I have asked my Department to review the current arrangements for dealing with sudden weather crises to see whether further improvements can be made to assist the movement of passengers and freight at such times. That review will also take account of arrangements in comparable countries. I am satisfied that action for dealing with snow on motorways, trunk roads and railway lines was put into hand quickly and effectively, but there is always room for improvement and it is right that we should make the effort to see whether further improvements would be appropriate. I hope to report to the House on that matter as soon as possible.
I shall now make a couple of brief comments on general transport policy, which will be of interest and relevant to the Bill. For many years we have been conscious of how transport is crucial to the economy of the country, given that we are a great trading nation and that the movement of our freight, imports and exports is the lifeblood of our economy. I am conscious also that transport is highly relevant to the convenience of members of the public as they go about their normal business. What has become clear in recent years is the extent to which a new dimension is relevant to the debate on transport—the environmental

dimension and the impact on the quality of life of our people as a whole which the current transport circumstances inevitably produce.
For millions of our fellow citizens, particularly in the south-east but also to some extent in every town and city across the land, the sheer growth in the volume of traffic as a consequence of the increasing prosperity of the country has brought major problems, frustration, congestion and irritation. I have no doubt that, in the months and years to come, that environmental dimension —the implications for the quality of life of people arising out of the huge and increasing volume of transport that the country will experience—will capture our attention to an even greater extent than in the past.
For some time I have been conscious of what I can describe only as a rather sterile debate as between road and rail transport and the priorities that should be attached to either. That debate is often conducted on a rather superficial level. Only last week, when some journalists discovered that I regularly travel by train from Edinburgh to London, I was immediately declared to be a new champion of the railways. No doubt, the discovery that I flew down to Heathrow this morning will be a cause of depression to the same commentators. In fact, like the vast majority of our fellow citizens, I choose road, rail or air transport depending on convenience and cost. That is the only sensible basis on which to expect the public to choose their method of transport.

Mr. Richard Holt: Although I am delighted to hear that my right hon and learned Friend travels to Scotland by air and train, has he ever done so by road? What was his experience?

Mr. Rifkind: I have travelled regularly by road. On most occasions I enjoyed the experience enormously, but there are occasional exceptions to that general principle. My hon. Friend must speculate as to when they are likely to have been.
There will be increased commercial opportunities for the use of the rail network. That would clearly be beneficial to the country as a whole. One of the great delights in the past few years has been the enormous increase in the number of railway stations which have been opened or reopened under the present Government. That process is opening a new chapter in railway history. However, I am conscious also that nine times as many people use the roads as passengers and for freight. Therefore, any sensible investment policy must reflect both requirements of our national infrastructure.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What concerns many people about the rail-road debate is that British rail appears—in the north of Scotland, at any rate—to be throwing aside opportunities to increase rail freight. It also seems to be throwing aside opportunities to retain passenger transport. Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the problems in Aberdeen is that British Rail is busy cutting its through services to London while at the same time claiming that there is no need for electrification between Aberdeen and Edinburgh because we shall have a better service? How can that be so when it is destroying conditions to improve services?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's description of what is happening is unnecessarily alarmist. He referred to freight services and one is obviously aware of the problems


faced by Speedlink, and British Rail's current examination of them. The way in which British Rail is finding alternative ways of carrying freight on the network, which has been traditionally carried by Speedlink, is particularly encouraging. No doubt, that will be welcomed. For all services—both passenger and freight—it is necessary for British Rail to identify not only the public interest, but the proper use of what will always be finite resources. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the only logical basis on which these matters can be considered.
I recognise that, increasingly, the debate on transport cannot be conducted purely at the national level. If there was ever a theme to which both the European dimension and the wider international dimension are relevant, it is transport. While the Government continue—as we shall —to emphasise the liberalisation of transport in the public interest, the debate will increasingly be conducted on both the European and the wider levels because that is the appropriate way to make progress in the interests of the public as a whole.
The purpose of the Bill is to save lives—it is as simple as that. Many of its provisions will make an important contribution towards continuing the significant improve-ments in road safety that we have seen in recent years. Although there has been considerable progress. I am conscious that much remains to be done. Nevertheless, it is right to recognise what has been achieved in the past 10 years. There is some comfort in the fact that, since the 1960s, despite a 250 per cent. increase in the volume of traffic on our roads, the number of fatalities has been substantially reduced from 8,000 per year to 5,000 per year. If we compared the United Kingdom's achievements with the figures for most other comparable European countries, again, some comfort can be taken from what has been achieved here in the past 10 or 15 years. The casualty rate in the United Kingdom is 9·2 deaths for every 100,000 persons. In the western part of Germany—the old Federal Republic—the figure is 13·4 per 100,000, while in France it is 20·6, in Spain it is 21·1 and in Portugal it is 33·2.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his new and elevated position as Secretary of State for Transport. He has made a telling point about comparisons with other countries. Will he confirm that Australia and Scandinavia have also reduced their fatalities by opting for random breath testing? Will my right hon. and learned Friend use the opportunity of his introductory remarks now, as we come towards the Christmas festivities, to state that he accepts that logic and the fact that more than 91 per cent. of people have said in opinion polls that they would support a Government who introduced random breath tests?

Mr. Rifkind: I acknowledge the progress that has been made in Australia, although I understand that that country still has a higher casualty rate than the United Kingdom. Random breath testing is a difficult and sensitive issue. It is right constantly to consider the experience of other countries, and it is important to remember that the existing legislation permits the police a wide discretion—which is virtually identical to random breath testing. At present, any police officer in the exercise of his duty can require a vehicle to stop. If the police officer then has any reason to believe that that vehicle, which might have been stopped randomly, is being driven by

someone under the influence of alcohol, the police officer can require a test to be taken. Therefore, there is an enormously wide discretion at present. However, I wish to continue to study the experience of other countries, which have different statutes, to see whether anything further can be learnt from their experiences.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose——

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way because I am conscious of the time and I have given way to him already. No doubt he will make his comments later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On this very point——

Mr. Rifkind: No. I shall not give way on this point.
I have made certain comparisons with other European countries which are favourable to the United Kingdom. However, I am conscious that the current position remains extremely serious. Every day, 15 people are killed on our roads and 170 are seriously injured. It is against that background that the Government adopted the target of seeking to reduce those casualties by a full one third by the end of the decade.
The proposals in part I of the Bill have the potential to make a valuable contribution to achieving that target. They implement the recommendations of the White Paper which was published in February 1989. This was the Government's response to the recommendations of the review of road traffic law, which was carried out under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter North. I pay tribute to Dr. North and to the review, which played an important part not only in the Government's thinking but in the wider public debate.
The law has a vital role to play in promoting the safety of all road users, whether as drivers, passengers, riders or pedestrians. It provides for those who infringe or threaten the safety of others to be dealt with. The knowledge that such action will be taken means a higher overall standard of driving and riding behaviour. There is no doubt that without good traffic law and its robust enforcement the toll on our roads would be very much higher. If we can improve and update that law and make its enforcement even more effective, there is every prospect that the casualty rate can be reduced. That is what the first part of the Bill is intended to do.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: First, I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his sideways transfer. Does he agree that causing death by dangerous or careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs has often led to amazingly light sentences being imposed by sheriffs? I exclude Greenock sheriffs from that criticism. Can the Secretary of State assure me that drivers who are convicted of culpable homicide and dreadful offences of this kind will receive the heavy sentences that they so manifestly deserve?

Mr. Rifkind: A person convicted of culpable homicide in Scotland could be subject to any sentence because, so far as I am aware, there is no statutory limit. Sentences for those guilty of causing death by dangerous or drunken driving are dealt with in the Bill, under which a maximum penalty of five years will be available to the courts if that is judged appropriate.
We are attacking the problem on three fronts. First, we are reforming the main road traffic offences. We are determined to crack down on bad driving. It has not always proved possible in the past in England and Wales to secure convictions for the existing offences of reckless driving and causing death by reckless driving because of the need for juries to be satisfied as to the driver's state of mind at the time the act of bad driving took place. We are therefore creating new offences which should more satisfactorily permit convictions for bad driving. We are also creating a new offence to deal more effectively with the drunk driver who drives badly and kills. There is never any excuse for drink-driving. A drunk driver who kills in these circumstances must expect the most severe penalty. We are also plugging a gap in the law with a new offence in England and Wales to deal with the vandals who put lives at risk by placing or throwing objects such as concrete blocks on to roads. If my Scottish colleagues are interested to know why that does not apply in Scotland, it is because the existing law on malicious mischief adequately deals with such matters.
The second area of action is penalties. The current offence of causing death by reckless driving already carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. That will be retained for the new dangerous driving offence where death is caused. There will be be a similar penalty for the other new offence of causing death when under the influence of drink or drugs. Offences of this gravity should be severely punished.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for what the Secretary of State has said and I add my congratulations to him on his new appointment. He has started well, but I shall say more about that later. As Dr. North was concerned about deaths on the road which are caused by fatigue—not only by drink and drugs—does the Secretary of State intend to include provisions on fatigue in the Bill?

Mr. Rifkind: I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman state with slightly greater care exactly what he has in mind. We did not think it appropriate to create an offence of careless driving that causes death because it could involve sentences which might be disproportionate to the gravity of the behaviour, that is, the careless nature of the driving of the individual concerned. If the hon. Gentleman will expand on that point, I will deal with it in more detail.
In other circumstances the maximum penalty for the new dangerous driving offence will be two years in prison —again the same as for the current reckless driving offence. We shall also introduce two new sentencing options, which should have a major effect on the behaviour of road users. People convicted of the most serious driving offences will have to take a much tougher driving test before being allowed back on the road at the end of a period of disqualification. We are also providing for an experiment in rehabilitation courses for offenders convicted for drink-driving offences. Experience from experiments abroad has suggested that such schemes, which encourage offenders to rethink their attitudes to drinking and driving, can have a significant effect on rates of reoffending. There will be powers to mount a national scheme if the experiment proves successful.
Finally, there are measures to improve enforcement of the law through the more effective use of camera

technology to detect speeding and red light jumping offences. Cameras will be placed where road safety benefits can be maximised. Their presence should have a major deterrent effect. And they could lead to a reduction of as much as 5 per cent. in road accidents.

Sir Anthony Grant: On technological aids, as I understand it, the aim of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State powers to introduce their use and to rule on the admissibility of evidence from them. Is he aware that one of the most serious causes of accidents is driving too close behind the car in front? Is he further aware that technological aids are available to give a warning that someone is driving too close or to prevent it? Such aids are not mentioned in the Bill and my right hon. and learned Friend may not wish to answer now, but will he consider the possibility of making the clause sufficiently wide to enable provision for such technological aids to be incorporated in the Bill? I understand that they are available abroad.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall be happy to look into the matter raised by my hon. Friend. Technology constantly produces new opportunities. If new devices can make a significant contribution to saving lives and preventing injury, we shall consider them in a constructive spirit. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
Before I turn to part II of the Bill, I shall deal with the clauses in part I. Clauses 1 and 2 replace the existing reckless driving offences, as I have earlier explained, with new dangerous driving offences. These will be based more closely on the actual standard of driving. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the menace of drink-driving, in particular by creation of the new offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. Clause 5 contains the new offence, which I also mentioned earlier, of causing danger to road users by placing or throwing objects on to roads.
Clauses 7 to 13 extend the existing powers to test vehicles on roads and to prohibit the driving of dangerous vehicles. Henceforth, it will he possible to test vehicles on roads for conformity with all construction and use requirements including emissions. The powers of prohibition will apply to private cars as well goods vehicles and public service vehicles and will, in circumstances of immediate danger, be exercisable by authorised police officers as well as the Department's vehicle examiners.
Clauses 17, 19 and 30 provide for the more effective use of camera technology. They make provisions as to the admissibility of camera evidence, provide safeguards on the reliability of the equipment and simplify follow-up procedures through the fixed penalty system. Proper enforcement, with proper safeguards, will bring valuable road safety benefits.
Clauses 23 to 25 make changes to the operation of disqualification and the penalty points system. In future, people disqualified for a specific offence such as drink-driving will no longer have the penalty points from previous unrelated offences wiped from their licences. This will act as a reminder to them that they must act responsibly once their licence is returned. It will also encourage the courts to make more use of their existing powers to order short periods of disqualification, for which provision is made in clause 29.

Mr. Holt: In a recent case in my constituency, involving the death of one of my constituents, the person who


perpetrated that death was given penalty points which were made to run concurrently with the eight points that he already had—they were not totted up. Under the new legislation, will my right hon. and learned Friend stop the current magistrates' practice of allowing concurrent penalties?

Mr. Rifkind: In general, it is appropriate for the magistrate to have discretion to decide whether a penalty should be concurrent or consecutive, but my hon. Friend has drawn the point to my attention and we shall consider whether it would be appropriate to stop the practice.
Clauses 26 and 27 set out the arrangements for the rehabilitation courses for drink drivers. The courses will be designed to influence offenders' attitudes to drinking and driving and to encourage self-examination. Offenders who complete courses successfully will be entitled to a reduction in the period of disqualification. The scheme will initially take the form of an experiment in selected areas. We shall need to monitor the experiment carefully before deciding whether to embark on a full-scale national scheme.
Clause 28 places courts under a duty to order re-tests for those convicted of the new dangerous driving offences. The extended test will probably be twice the length of the normal driving test and consequently more demanding. Courts will also have wide discretion to order a re-test for people convicted of other offences which result in disqualification. These optional powers will be particularly helpful where offenders' driving behaviour suggests that the discipline of a test will be useful in determining whether they should be allowed back on the road.
Clause 32 simplifies the procedures for local authorities to vary parking charges at designated parking places, and clause 33 deals with the power of local authorities in London to appoint parking attendants.
Part II of the Bill contains a major package to deal with traffic in London. Demand for travel in London is forecast to grow. It reflects and reinforces the prosperity of the capital, the benefits of which flow to the whole country. The increase in commuting to central London has been carried entirely by public transport. Since 1983, the number of people commuting by rail has increased by 22 per cent. and we have a massive investment programme in London Underground and Network SouthEast to cater for them. By contrast, the numbers commuting by car has fallen by more than 10 per cent. But other traffic in London has been increasing—for instance, the number of vans coming into central London has risen by more than half—and major new developments are bound to generate some extra traffic, so it is not realistic to set limits on traffic growth in London. Our aims are to cater for growth in London's economy and to relieve the worst congestion where this can be done without unacceptable environmental and social costs. We have a major programme of road improvements in hand, particularly to upgrade the North Circular road and to improve access to east London and Docklands. However, we have to accept that the scope for new road construction is limited, particularly in inner London.
Without any action, the problem would steadily worsen. Over the past 20 years, average speeds have gradually fallen—for example, peak hour speeds in inner London have fallen from 14 mph to about 11 mph. Drivers

increasingly use side roads to avoid overcrowded main roads, causing disturbances and accidents in residential areas.
Therefore, we are creating a network of priority routes, or "red routes", which will help people and goods to move around London more easily. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who called for such an innovation some time ago and has campaigned tirelessly for it. He mentioned to me that he would have liked to be here today but he explained that lie is attending a conference in France. I pay tribute to his pioneering work in this respect. The routes will be subject to special controls on stopping, loading and unloading, which will be strictly enforced, with appropriate penalties for non-compliance. They will be managed by our traffic director, who will ensure the efficient operation of the network. The reduction of avoidable hold-ups will increase reliability and cut waste of resources and the pollution caused by stop-start conditions.
There will be special provision for buses, the performance of which suffers due to congestion. It will be possible to make room for better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and measures will be introduced to keep traffic out of residential areas, which will have safety benefits.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way to me on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Transport Secretary. While I agree with much of the description that he gave, will he take it from me that, although the remedy may help marginally, it is not the most effective one and that there was insufficient consultation on that part of the Bill, which is a bureaucratic nightmare?

Mr. Rifkind: I await with considerable interest and anticipation a description of the remedy which the hon. Gentleman believes would solve the problem more effectively than the Government's proposal.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State must be aware that the proposed experimental red route runs through my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). During the consultation period, there was overwhelming opposition to the imposition of the route on the area—not least by the local authority, which is elected by the people of the area. The opposition was mounted following the successful opposition to the building of a major through-route in the area. The red route will bring an increase in traffic through the area, and that traffic will travel at higher speeds. In effect, we shall see the construction of a large barrier through the middle of communities. Does the Secretary of State agree that the real solution to London's traffic problems is to invest more resources in public transport and to reduce the number of vehicles entering London? London cannot cope with any increase in traffic. In effect, the Government will sit idly by and watch an increase in London's traffic take place.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government are increasing resources for public transport, and by a far greater amount than for many years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others will welcome that. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I remind him that whatever measures might be taken, including the sort of measures which I have no doubt he has in mind, there will still be a considerable volume of


traffic throughout London. It is important that that traffic should, if possible, be able to move more easily and without congestion. Congestion frustrates drivers, in-creases the dangers for pedestrians in the part of the town where it exists, and is likely to lead to an increase in casualties.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that the proposed red route is a pilot scheme. The experiment will be carried out and we shall be able to see the effect that it has. The Government and, I am sure, the local authority will be examining it with great interest to ascertain whether the implications and consequences are helpful or otherwise. Where red routes have been applied elsewhere, there has been a beneficial consequence for the movement of traffic. We hope that that will be replicated in London.
Along with red routes, the Bill will also provide for the establishment of a new and more rational system of permitted parking, mainly at meter and residents' bays, to be administered and enforced by local authorities. This will release significant numbers of police traffic wardens to enforce legal parking controls on red routes and elsewhere. At the same time, we are providing traffic wardens with wider powers to clamp and impound vehicles. The potential benefits are enormous. More than 200,000 parking offences are committed in the capital each day. Some estimates suggest that the economic cost in central London alone is about £140 million a year. The initiative is the first of its type for more than 20 years, and the widest ever. It is part of the Government's aim to make the best use of existing roads throughout London and forms part of our broad strategic approach to the development of London's transport system.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in Westminster, where the police have pioneered the use of wheel clamping and towing away, there has been a dramatic improvement in the control of parking and the movement of traffic? My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that the most significant increase in the volume of traffic arises from the use of commercial vehicles and not from private cars.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. I believe that the number of cars coming into London has decreased over the years by 10 per cent., but the number of vans and commercial vehicles has continued to increase. We are seeking to respond to that phenomenon.
Clause 35 gives the Secretary of State the power to designate a network of priority routes to ease the flow of traffic on London's main roads. Clause 36 gives the Secretary of State power to issue new traffic management guidance to London's local authorities and the Traffic Director for London. The guidance will focus on the Secretary of State's aims for the network, and explain how the routes fit into the Government's approach to the development of transport in London. Clause 37 gives the Secretary of State power to appoint an independent Traffic Director for London to co-ordinate the establishment of the routes and monitor their operation. It also gives the Secretary of State power to set the director's objectives.

Mr. Corbyn: The Secretary of State is dealing with a serious part of the Bill. The people of London lost the power to elect a London-wide authority when the Greater

London council was abolished. It now appears that we are to have a traffic authority for London by appointment, thrust upon us by the Secretary of State. Where is the democracy in that? Or do Londoners get no say any more in the planning of London's traffic?

Mr. Rifkind: The director's responsibilities will be limited to the proposed red routes. I hope that he will be working alongside the local authorities. He will submit a report to Parliament on the way in which he has exercised his duties. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's criticisms are justified.
Clause 38 requires the director to issue a network plan to the London local authorities, setting out the overall framework for the routes, the way in which the priority route measures are to be introduced and the timetable for their introduction.
Clauses 39 to 47 cover the preparation and implementation of local plans, which will set out in detail the priority route measures to be introduced. There will be a duty on relevant London local authorities to prepare and implement plans for priority routes for which they are the highway authority. The plans will need to be approved by the traffic director. The director will have a similar duty to prepare and implement local plans for trunk roads designated as priority routes where he is directed to do so by the Secretary of State. The traffic director and the Secretary of State will have fall-back powers where the local authorities fail to meet their duties. However, the implementation of the network will be very much for the benefit of all London's residents, so we are looking forward to the local authorities' co-operation and envisage the fall-back powers being used only as a last resort.
Clause 48 requires the Secretary of State to issue parking guidance to local authorities in London to ensure a co-ordinated approach to parking. The aim will be to avoid distortions between one area of London and another, to maximise the benefits of the priority routes and to improve the movement of traffic throughout London. Part of the guidance will cover the introduction and operation of the new system of permitted on-street parking in London.
Clauses 49 to 58 make provision for the new system. Excess charges set by individual local authorities will be replaced by standard penalty charges set by a joint committee. Instead of being backed by the threat of prosecution, they will be collected as a civil debt, and all enforcement at permitted parking places—meter bays and residents' spaces—will be carried out by local authority parking attendants instead of police traffic wardens. They will have the power to wheel-clamp vehicles parked in breach of the orders. It will be the function of the committee to set the charges associated with wheel-clamping and removal. It will also appoint parking adjudicators to whom aggrieved drivers may appeal.
Clause 59 provides for the Secretary of State to make grants to the traffic director to cover the reasonable expenditure that he incurs in relation to the priority routes. As the local authority roads in the network will comprise only about 30 per cent. of the total, and the work on these roads will be for the benefit of the network as a whole, it is proposed that the director will make appropriate payments to the local authorities from the grant.
I believe that this Bill will make an important contribution to the efficiency and safety of transport, both in London through the major programme for the easing of


congestion, and nationally through the reform of road traffic law. It has already been welcomed by a number of important commentators and organisations involved with road transport matters. The Automobile Association saw the Bill
as a means of keeping dangerous, aggressive and antisocial drivers off Britain's roads.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents welcomed the provisions set out in the Bill and has said that it views the Bill
as a very positive step.
A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers has written:
Seldom have the recommendations of a Government review body met with such unanimous support from interested parties. It is hoped that the Bill will serve to reduce the tragic waste of life on our roads.
I am sure that the House will wish to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I so commend.

Mr. John Prescott: First, I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State. Having listened to him this afternoon, I think that I shall find more agreement with him that I have with his predecessors. I presume, however, that once we get into the area of transport policy, disagreement will begin.
We start on a good note with the Bill, which is about road safety. If its aim is to improve road safety, that will unite both sides of the House. I am delighted to be able to give it that support. The introductory remarks of the Secretary of State reflect, I think, the way in which he will approach his job. I am delighted that that is so. I wondered what sort of character the right hon. and learned Gentleman was. Those of us who represent constituencies south of Scotland hear of the battles that are taking place in Scottish constituencies.
This morning I read a profile of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Transport Week, a magazine published by the Freight Transport Association. The headline described him as the
Scot who could knock Transport into kilter
The profile is complimentary and we already know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a great reputation as a thinker and debater. I was particularly impressed on one occasion when he made a speech without notes, but I note that the practice was not followed today. No doubt the detail of transport will exercise his mind and he will have to keep close to his notes. I am glad that, at last, he has joined the normal mortals of the Chamber.
The profile describes the Secretary of State a s an ambitious lawyer. He will certainly need to be that if he is to understand the technical matters behind the Bill. The article also says that his promotion was a necessary climb up the ladder. I am not sure that the same could be said of previous Secretaries of State and we shall wait and see what happens to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The Secretary of State has already realised that it is important to pursue a different policy from that pursued in the past and that that is more important than a different face at the Department. That change of emphasis was clear from his speech today when he spoke about the consequences for the environment—presumably that means more than just planting trees on roadsides, which was the policy advocated by the previous Secretary of State. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also spoke about integration and planning, which are important

issues and are at the heart of Labour party policy. Given that his Department seems to be pinching most of our ideas, I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman consults two documents produced by us, "Moving Britain into Europe" and "Moving Britain into the 1990s". They would add to his thinking on transport.
I noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was important to recognise that Europe will have an important effect on our transport policy. I recall a television interview with the Minister for Public Transport when it was pointed out to him that the European railway system was much better than our own. He replied that it was the job of the United Kingdom and not the Europeans to run our railways. Perhaps the Minister will heed what his Secretary of State said about learning from the Europeans, as they have produced a better rail system than our own. I accept, of course, that there is also much to be gained from our railway system.
Today gives me the opportunity to make an unusual pact with the Secretary of State: can we agree to take ideology out of transport? The tragedy is that arguments about planning and intervention have been described in terms of ideology, but those arguments are all about achieving a better transport system. In Europe, Governments of the left and right have agreed that there is a role for Government, public money, planning arid intervention. If both sides of the House recognise that, we have a good opportunity to turn Britain's transport system into a good one. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that he has inherited a mess and a transport system in crisis. I hope that he will make the necessary changes.
The profile in the FTA magazine also described the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a winner in Scotland. I was rather confused about that, because, as an outsider, I thought that he had had more than his fair share of problems. After all, the poll tax was pretty disastrous when it was introduced up there; there was civil war in the Conservative party and support for it had rapidly declined. I should have thought that any job in this Cabinet was better for him than staying in Scotland. Whether he is a winner or not, I hope that he will do much better when dealing with the United Kingdom's transport system.
We must recognise that the role of the Government is important. It is also important to consider the role of the Department of Transport in terms of problems associated with bad weather. The Department could do a lot about co-ordinating policy and I am not satisfied that the Home Office is the right Department for that. I am glad that the Secretary of State has also recognised that we could learn a great deal from Europe about how to cope with such adverse weather.
Access to motorways and the use of railways are crucial in severe weather. It was interesting to note that, today, most hon. Members complained about problems associated with motor cars. If our public transport system were more effective, however, it could make a much greater contribution in such circumstances. Many car drivers use their vehicles because they are more reliable than our transport system. That is a sad reflection on what has happened to transport services in the past few years.
Hon. Members have &ready related the problems that they experienced in their cars at the weekend and I am not averse to relating the difficulties I have had when attempting to catch various trains. On Friday I intended to catch the 5.33 pm Pullman to Hull, but when I reached the


Victoria line I found that there was a delay of half an hour because another train was stuck on the line. For the best part of 25 minutes no train appeared and most people missed their connections—I was one of them and I took a later fast train to Leeds. In the past I have spoken about those marvellous trains that travel at 140 mph, but even that train was 40 minutes late getting into Doncaster. That delay could not be blamed on bad weather, as it was still fine on Friday evening. My story illustrates that the problem relates to the reliability of our system. Such reliability is crucial and I look forward to debating that with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
We support part I of the Bill, but we have many criticisms to make about part II, which relates to London and priority routes. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will have much to say about that later. I want to concentrate on part I, because, as the Secretary of State said, it is concerned with safety, saving lives and reducing the incidence of serious injury. We recognise that our safety record is better than that of Europe, and the Government can readily claim some credit for that. The death and accident rate among the young and old suggests that the control of speed limits within our cities is crucial if we are to reduce such accidents. The Bill will give powers, for the first time, to reduce speed limits in urban areas and that is welcome.
The Government may talk about centralisation, but, once they abolished the Greater London council and took over control of the underground and bus services, standards grew considerably worse. We were told often enough that hon. Members would be able to debate the accountability of those transport authorities despite the abolition of the GLC. When we asked how that would be possible, we were told that we would be able to debate that issue when considering the supplementary rates. Now, as a result of the poll tax, however, we no longer have a debate on the supplementary rates and, therefore, those transport authorities are less accountable than when they were under the control of the GLC.
The traffic supremo is accountable to no one, save the Secretary of State. He can enforce powers over the local authorities and those authorities will have little control. As far as I can understand it, the traffic supremo is nothing but a quango. I thought that the Government spent most of their time saying that they wanted to get rid of such things.
I agree that it is essential that we must deal with the problems caused by urban traffic, but if the Government want to do anything about improving transport in our cities more emphasis should be placed on the use of buses rather than private vehicles.
I note that the right hon. Member for Birmingham——

Mr. Roger King: Northfield.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman should not be so ambitious. I meant to refer to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I may have got his constituency wrong, but I am right to say that he did most to deregulate our bus services—a decision which everyone recognises to have been disastrous. When the present Secretary of State was responsible for Scotland he did not make the same mistake. I remember that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spent a lot of his time

welcoming and waving off British Coachways, which he described as a new enterprise with a cutting edge. I am afraid to say that it lasted just 18 months and was taken over by the privatised National Bus system. That great new enterprise could not stand up to the competition because it did not have the necessary resources, let alone a reservation system, to cope. Another great idea, which was part of the cutting edge of enterprise, failed. The deregulation of buses was a catalogue of disasters— catalogued by a number of authorities and not just by me. It is up to people to make their judgment about it.
I disagree with nothing that the Secretary of State said about part I of the Bill—the controversy relates to what has been left out. Hon. Members on both sides have already revealed the strength of feeling about random testing and drink-driving. That is a major issue on which I hope the House has the opportunity to vote. I am sad and sorry that the Secretary of State has not seen his way to include it in the Bill. To be fair, I am also sorry that consideration of random testing was not included in Dr. North's terms of reference. It was unfortunate that, although he spent some time considering drink-driving, he did not look at random testing. Anyone who has met Dr. North will know that he has strong views on the matter. We must take the opportunity of the Bill to deal with that issue.
The drink-driving aspect is important. I appreciate that the Home Office set up a committee which reported on this issue, but rejected the possibility of introducing random testing. However, it is time for the House to make a decision. It is a controversial matter involving balancing the civil rights of the individual and the rights of people to be defended from those who take irresponsible and criminal actions. The House has constantly had good debates on the subjects of abortion, seat belts and hanging, which all involve important principles. It has often been rightly said that the House is at its best when it has such debates.
In many ways, while it is Opposition policy to introduce random testing, I hope that the possibility of giving the House a free vote will be considered. I suggested that in Committee when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was Secretary of State. As he knows, three or four hon. Members supported my suggestion in Committee in those early days in the 1970s. Now, the opportunity for such a vote must be provided in the House. In the past, votes have been held in Committee, but there has never been a chance for the whole House to vote on the matter.
The arguments are overwhelming, as the figures show. In 1988, one in six road deaths involved drink-driving, which was responsible for killing 950 and injuring 25,000. There were 120,000 convictions for drink-driving, nearly all the defendants lost their licences and 4,000 went to prison. More than half the drivers and motor bike riders killed on roads between 10 pm and 4 am were over the legal limit. In 1987, the cost of road accidents was £4 billion. Since the introduction of the breathalyser in 1967, the number of excess alcohol detections has quadrupled. The breathalyser has been a success because it has reduced the number of deaths and accidents, as is well proven.
Therefore, the argument before us is whether we should go further and introduce random testing. At present, the police make it clear that they intend to carry out what is basically random testing. In The Independent on


Wednesday 5 December, Commander David Ray of New Scotland Yard made the following statement to warn drivers;
You will be tested if you are involved in a road accident, whether you are at fault or not, or you commit a moving traffic offence and a police officer suspects you have been drinking or you are drunk in charge of a vehicle, even if it is parked.
The last two policies are exactly the same as they are now, but the first policy shows that police will now act as they feel fit, whether or not there is anything wrong with the vehicle. Parliament has not agreed that policy.
It has been said that we should leave it to the discretion of the chief constables. I have a list of all the chief constables in different parts of the country; some believe in random testing and some think that it is not so important. Let us look at the scale of random testing—that is, what is occurring, but without approval from the House. In Nottingham in 1988, there were 32,800 screen testings, in Merseyside—a similar police force—there were 4,700 testings. It depends where one is in the country whether one is subjected to such screening. We should have one uniform policy on that. If we decide to allow random testing, cars should be stopped under uniform conditions in all parts of the United Kingdom. Cars should not be stopped merely for road testing. The questions of when, how and if the driver will be able to appeal against the decision should be contained in legislation; we should not leave such issues solely to the discretion of chief constables and I am surprised that hon. Members believe that we should.
Experiments clearly show that wherever random testing has been introduced—Australia, Austria, south Wales and various other countries—there tends to be a reduction in deaths and accidents of about 35 per cent. If we were to introduce random testing, many hundreds of deaths and serious injuries could be prevented. I am not aware of all the evidence, but I appeal to the Secretary of State to ask his Department to look at all the evidence and provide detailed information for the Committee stage so that we can make some assessment of it.
I am always confused when I hear that people are worried about whether the police have too much power and discretion. In the road safety debate on 16 November, the Minister for Roads and Traffic said:
The police have tremendous discretion and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said earlier this year, it is appropriate to leave the law as it is. I emphasise that there were 22 per cent. more breath tests last year than there were the year before. If the police continue at that rate, it will not be long before we have 1 million breath tests a year.
That means that the number of breath tests will have doubled from 500,000 to 1 million. The Minister continued that, in those circumstances,
One can always make a case for increasing police powers, but we should be cautious about giving greater discretion to the police in this matter."—[Official Report, 16 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 815.]
The police have discretion which varies from district to district.
The House is prepared to press for votes on hanging —we are about to have one—when there are about 500 murders a year. Some hon. Members are prepared to bring in hanging, presumably as a deterrent—I have heard very few of them argue the case for retribution. Therefore, in this case, where more lives could be saved by one simple action, the House should pay equal attention to saving

lives by bringing in random testing, for which there is a powerful argument, and I find it difficult to understand why it does not do so.
The Department contains two "hangers" and two Ministers who voted against hanging. Therefore, perhaps the Department is equally balanced. The House should at least be given the opportunity to vote on random testing. Let us hear the available evidence and have a debate, just as the House will have a vote on hanging——

Mr. Greg Knight (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Not random hanging.

Mr. Prescott: I am sure that the parents of children killed in drink-driving cases will not find the hon. Gentleman's remark very clever. People do not understand how, despite the big majorities against hanging, the House returns to the subject every 12 to 18 months, but constantly refuses, year after year, to have a vote on breath testing. I assure the House that the Opposition will ensure that there will be a motion to debate that subject and an opportunity to settle the issue once and for all.

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman makes some important and powerful points with which the House will have a good degree of sympathy. Does he agree that the simplest solution to the problem of drink-driving is not one of law or the debate about the extent of the law and police powers? I agree that, in their enforcement of the law, police officers should have standardised procedures. However, is not the answer to use the modern technology available to prevent people with alcohol on their breath from starting the engine of a car?

Mr. Prescott: There is a role for technology, but I am sure that it is not beyond human wit and ingenuity to get round such proposals. I am all for welcoming any technology, whether related to red lights to stop people jumping the lights or speeding, but ultimately it is the deterrent, the chance of being caught, that is the most effective way of influencing people and persuading them not to drink and drive.
The options open to us are not limited to random testing; the blood alcohol level could be brought down to that recommended in Europe. The evidence shows that reducing the level would undermine people who think that they can have two pints or certain drinks, and still be below the limit. Such people are a problem. I understand the logic of the argument that we should not allow any drink, but we must live with reality and bring down blood alcohol levels.
In a pub yesterday I bought a lemonade for 85p. It is scandalous that, in the time of drink-driving laws, one pays as much for a glass of lemonade as for beer, when one person in a group may decide to drink lemonade, as many youngsters do. It is to the credit of youngsters that they are not the targets at which we aim legislation. It is aimed at those aged between 35 and 50, such as business executives, the A1 and A2 social classifications, including company directors and the higher echelons of society, including Members of Parliament.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose——

Mr. Prescott: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He had a number of remarks to make and I have received his apology. He was quite wrong to


make the remarks he did in the road safety debate and I have no intention of giving way to him in this debate—he knows what I am talking about.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: No, sit down.
The changes proposed in respect of careless, dangerous and reckless driving, to which the Secretary of State referred, are good and proper, and are to be welcomed. However, there is concern about the quality of the advice given to the police on what constitutes careless, dangerous or reckless driving. The changes that North suggests are much more sensible.
Clause 3 refers to drink and drugs, but not to drivers affected by fatigue or sleepiness. The White Paper, "The Road User and the Law," makes reference to the offence of driving while unfit. It mentions
drink, drugs … temporary incapacity due to fatigue, somnolence or temporary disability".
I cannot find those categories in the Bill. Incapacity through fatigue, and people driving for longer hours than they should, are important considerations. One can understand the difficulties of bringing charges under that heading, and perhaps that led the Secretary of State to omit it from the Bill.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will surely acknowledge that there is a high degree of culpability if someone drives under the influence of drink or drugs which they should have been aware they had consumed. Driving while suffering from excess fatigue does not, by its very nature, involve the same degree of culpability—and therefore falls to be treated differently.

Mr. Prescott: I was quoting from the Government's own White Paper, and Dr. North also considered the question of fatigue. Although it might be difficult to prove such an offence, perhaps the Secretary of State will address himself to that matter in Committee.
There is undoubtedly a causal link between speed and accidents. I have as much need to understand that as anyone else. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. There is clear evidence of a correlation between speed, road accidents and deaths that no one can deny and legislators must bear it in mind when drafting new law. The Bill strikes the right balance in that respect. I look forward also to debating the role that technology can play, whether in stopping people from jumping traffic lights or driving at excessive speeds.
Use of deterrents is the most effective way of preventing road casualties and I hope that we shall be able to make progress with that. I am interested that the Government are giving consideration to introducing corporate liability, which I have advocated in many other areas. The Bill appears to confine the application of corporate liability to cases in which a company is required to reveal the identity of the driver of a firm's vehicle that has been involved in an accident. The Government now seem prepared to attach corporate liability to the firm that owns the car concerned. That leaves the controversial question whether, having fined the company, one or more of its directors will also be given penalty points. One wonders whether that would be acceptable and I look forward to debates in Committee on that aspect also.
I would like corporate liability extended to heavy goods vehicles. All too often we blame the worker—the driver involved in an accident that has occurred in difficult circumstances. The White Paper suggests that responsibility should not be taken from the driver, and that philosophy is reflected in the Bill. That will simply place the driver under greater pressure from the lorry owner.
The recent BBC "Watchdog" programme on lorries was a powerful piece of work, and clearly showed that of the 19 million cars in the United Kingdom, 5,000 are involved in fatal accidents each year, whereas the half a million lorries are involved in 1,000 fatal accidents. The number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled is 1·7 in the case of cars, and 3·4 in the case of lorries—twice as many.
In 1989, 88,000 heavy goods vehicles were tested at the roadside, 16·5 per cent. of which were prohibited from continuing their journeys due to law-breaking defects—a total of 15,000 HGVs. In October 1989, 5,500 lorries were stopped in London, and one in 10—a total of 550—were unlicensed. Of the 100 lorries mechanically tested, 50 per cent. were faulty. Those are serious statistics.
There have already been complaints about ineffectual fines. The "Watchdog" programme also investigated the fines imposed on companies for running vehicles with defective tyres. The average fine was £150, which is less than the price of a single tyre for such vehicles. Also, one third of the HGVs in the sample failed their MOT the first time, and one quarter of them failed at the second attempt. I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking extra powers in the Bill to improve the standing of test stations. However, I hope that he will increase also the number of inspectors, because it has been falling over a period of time.
If there is corporate liability, we are then faced with the problem that many transport companies go bust the moment that any action is taken against them. Many are one-lorry firms. They automatically go bust and cannot be brought to law, yet they are the very people one wants to catch because they undermine the competition. The Road Haulage Association's recent report made it clear that it wants more prosecutions, and heavier penalties:
It is recommended that vehicle confiscation would be a constructive move to terminate activities that have given rise to fly tipping, abuse of driver hours regulations, avoidance of vehicle excise duty, and environmental nuisance. Such a measure would have widespread support within the haulage industry and would be welcomed by the public at large.
Dr. North also spoke of vehicle confiscation, but no such provision is in the Bill. We intend giving powers to the transport inspectors, who will be able to confiscate an operating licence, but more should be done to penalise the owner.
As to tachographs, the United Road Transport Union under Frank Griffin wants a simple new measure, which could be provided in the Bill, to ensure that tachographs are properly numbered in sequence so that inspectors will more easily be able to locate them when bringing prosecutions. At the moment, a tachograph can simply be thrown in a box and it can be made very difficult to find that evidence. That small procedural change would improve the Bill.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider also the plight of drivers who cannot gain access to service station facilities, including sleeping accommodation, and an opportunity to have a shave or take a shower. Lorries are banned from many such facilities, which leaves their


drivers tired and less alert, and makes it more probable that they will be involved in accidents. In the Birmingham area, the Transport and General Workers Union, under Dennis Mills, has been campaigning for change for a long time. Service stations depend on lorry drivers for their own supplies and livelihoods, as much of the British economy does, yet deny them decent facilities.
Part I at least is a great step forward, though my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford will have something to say about part II. I do not have time to talk about rear seat belts, but I know that the Department is probably about to make the wearing of them compulsory—and if that happens many more injuries and deaths will be prevented. If provisions on seat belts and random testing of drink driving are put into the Bill, they will save many hundreds of lives and thousands of serious injuries. They are worthy of consideration and of inclusion in a Bill devoted to road safety. Those two measures would make the Bill a far better piece of legislation.

Sir Bernard Braine: As one who has campaigned for many years for effective measures to combat drinking and driving, I warmly welcome the Bill. May I also welcome the arrival of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities, and the most constructive and challenging remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? I enjoyed both their speeches immensely.
Our country's record on drink-driving legislation is already good by international standards. But for two regrettable and notable omissions, the Bill would mark an advance that would make Britain a world leader in road safety. Much of my speech is related to those omissions. We have the time, the opportunity and, I hope, the will to remedy them.
In recent years we have learned that the problem of drinking and driving is not nearly as intractable as it once appeared, and that effective measures can be taken to reduce the toll of alcohol-related deaths and injuries on our roads—a toll that is as appalling as it is totally unnecessary. It is not so long ago since drinking and driving were hardly viewed as a crime in any real sense of the word—save by the victims and their relatives. Indeed, offenders were often regarded as deserving of sympathy —as people who were unlucky to have been caught. Thank God, all that has changed.
Here I should like to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), whose tireless work during his time in office as Minister for Roads and Traffic did so much to change public attitudes, and to prepare the way for some of the provisions in this Bill. On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I should also like to pay tribute to the campaign against drinking and driving. Its influence in the framing of the Bill is evident, especially in regard to the proposed new offences of dangerous driving and of causing death by drinking and driving. Greatly aided by the media—a measure of the seriousness with which people view this subject—the campaign has brought home to the British public, as never before, the full, sordid, human realities of the problems of drinking and driving, which are now

almost universally recognised as extreme anti-social behaviour, tantamount to a threat of violence that strikes at random.
Yet despite the welcome progress of recent years, far too many lives are still being put at risk, or destroyed unnecessarily. Drinking and driving remains the single most important cause of death and injury on our roads, and that must be sharply reduced. Let us consider the figures. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned some of them. The year before last, one in six road deaths happened in an accident involving drink-driving; 840 people were killed and about 22,000 people were injured on the roads in accidents in which drink driving was a factor. I do not believe that the latest figures would show very much improvement.
My anxiety about the Bill, which I know is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, concerns the extent to which the measures it proposes would help to prevent the social evil of drinking and driving resulting in unacceptable death and injury, as distinct from the measures that seek to ameliorate the situation once the offence causing death or injury has occurred. The Bill proposes improved, or more appropriate, penalties for drinking and driving. Welcome though they are, I am aware of little evidence that increasing the severity of penalties alone has any significant effect in reducing the number of such offences.
Naturally, I fully support the proposed new offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, but the justification for that proposal is not that it will act as a deterrent but that it is justice—that is, "justice" in inverted commas. That may remedy the defect in the existing law, which results in many drink-drivers who kill other road users being charged and convicted only of driving with an excess of alcohol in their blood. The campaign against drinking and driving has campaigned for that much-needed reform for some years but, frankly, like the campaigners, I fear that that will not, of itself, prevent further deaths.
The campaign secretary, Mr. Graham Buxton, in a letter that many of us recently received, said that that clause of the Bill
satisfies the demands of justice but not of prevention.
There is a simple explanation for that. When he sets off on his journey, no driver believes that he will cause an accident. If he believed that he would not drive; he would not even begin. Instead he is unthinking—sozzled—he is sozzled because he is unthinking.
I greatly welcome the proposal for a major experiment in education courses for drink-drive offenders. Almost exactly 10 years ago, when I was still chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism, in a Second Reading debate on the Transport Bill of 1981, I argued for just such a development and I am gratified to learn that it is finally to be introduced. It is pleasing, even after a decade, that something that one advocated all those years ago is now accepted. It is entirely right and proper that a person who has been convicted of a drink-driving offence should be expected to attend a rehabilitation course in his own as well as in the public interest.
However, I have some anxieties on that score. To my knowledge, there is little evidence that rehabilitation schemes, however desirable or successful they may be in certain cases in reducing recidivism, have any marked effect on the overall level of drink-drive accidents and casualties. Indeed, American research had estimated that


even if all persons convicted of drinking and driving were prevented from repeating their offence, fatal crashes would decrease by 3 per cent. only.
Therefore, I am especially concerned about the Government's proposal to trade off attendance at rehabilitation courses against the period of disqualifica-tion. That is wholly the wrong approach. Licence suspension is the principle sanction against drinking and driving and, arguably, it will always be a more powerful tool than rehabilitation courses are likely to be in ensuring road safety. I trust, therefore, that the Government will reconsider that aspect of the Bill.
The Government hope that the Bill will be a major means of achieving their goal of a one third reduction in the number of road deaths and injuries by the end of the century. All of us share that aim. However, I am not optimistic in regard to the proposals on drinking and driving, and I shall tell the House why.
The first omission from the Bill is related to the legal limit. I find it strange that, as we embark on another publicity campaign exhorting the public not to drink and drive, the Government should insist on retaining a legal limit of 80 mg—substantially above what doctors and scientists have been telling us for a long time is the maximum compatible with road safety. For some years, the scientific consensus has been that a maximum of 50 mg of alcohol to 100 ml of blood is far more consistent with the known effects of alcohol on driving competence, and it is certainly more consistent with the message of the Government's own publicity campaign.
It is often said that we are now dealing— or attempting to deal—with the hard core of people who continue to drink and drive. No doubt we are; but that still seems to comprise a great many who have not been dissuaded by any publicity campaign. A survey carried out by Gallup for General Accident Insurance Group, released last week, found that 30 per cent. of all drivers—or 41 per cent. of all business drivers—admitted to drinking and driving. That is, of course, a minority of the driving population, but it is a very substantial minority. In fact the evidence suggests that the main factor influencing the behaviour of such people is not the size or nature of the penalty, but the perceived risk of being caught in the first place.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there has been an enormous change in attitudes over the past decade? Is not it now acceptable for people who are offered a drink to say, "No, I am driving"? Those who advocate random breath testing seem to ignore the fact that, according to the Department of Transport, that change in attitudes has reduced the number of drink-drivers by half. It was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) when he was Minister for Roads and Traffic, with the co-operation of the brewers. Is not it wrong to ignore changes in public attitude, which have had more effect than any other factor?

Sir Bernard Braine: I do not know what my hon. Friend was doing earlier, when I thanked the Almighty for that very change in public attitudes. I was not born yesterday; I have been in the business of alcohol abuse for a long time. As I said, there have been changes, thank God—but obviously my hon. Friend did not hear me say it.
I am not talking about that; I am talking about the continued carnage on our roads. I do not know about my hon. Friend's constituency, but every now and again I have to face a constituent who has lost a loved one because of some drunken driver. I suspect that every hon. Member has experienced that, and it must cease. No mild words can be expected from me about what I regard as a disgrace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is tempting me to go into more detail. Regardless of the improvements in public perceptions and attitudes—which I do not deny—the principal failure of the Bill lies in the omission of a measure to deal with the aspect of the problem that I have just described. The Bill does not prevent the Commission of the crime and the subsequent suffering of the victims' families, and in that respect it is inadequate.
Virtually the whole community—including the police and the overwhelming majority of the public—know what is required. I find it extraordinary that the Government have not included a clause to introduce random breath testing: experience in other countries strongly suggests that that would provide the single most effective means of reducing the number of alcohol-related deaths and injuries, thus achieving the Government's declared objective.
In Australia and the Nordic countries—countries whose societies are not far removed in character from our own—random breath testing has proved the principal counter-measure, and there is no reason to believe that it would not be effective in preventing drunken driving in Britain. Moreover, random testing carried out by means of properly authorised and designated roadside checkpoints provides built-in safeguards relating to the liberty of the subject and relations between the police and the motoring public. In that important respect as well as others, it is superior to our existing legal framework.
I am certain that, on reflection, many hon. Members will make the case for random testing during the Bill's progress through the House. I agree with the contention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that this matter concerns all Members of Parliament, wherever their constituencies may be. There should be a free vote on the issue—unless, of course, the Government recognise the strength and validity of my arguments and act accordingly.
I sincerely hope that the Government will listen. If they have a better proposal, we and the public outside would like to hear it, but I hope that they will think again about the omissions from the Bill before the Report stage. I do not deny that progress has been made—it would be dreadful if it had not—but that does not justify complacency or inconsistency.
On 16 November, speaking in the debate on road safety, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic justified the Government's intention to enforce the wearing of rear seat belts on the ground that it would save 100 lives and prevent 1,000 injuries. He said:
With such huge benefits available, we must not delay." —[Official Report, 16 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 807.]
That is quite right—but, paradoxically, those words are in direct opposition to the Government's reaction to the proposal for random breath testing, although that would certainly prevent a much greater number of casualties.
I cannot comprehend why the Government continue to fly in the face of public opinion. I warn them, here and now, that the safety of innocent people using our roads


—young and old, in my constituency and in every other constituency in the land—must no longer be fettered by vested interests or faint-heartedness.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It gives me particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House. Nearly 40 years ago, as a student, I was responsible for assembling a non-party platform of Members of Parliament; the right hon. Gentleman travelled some distance to attend, along with some Labour Members. It is also a pleasure to follow him because I can endorse almost everything that he has said: I do not think that his logic can be faulted. He is entirely right in saying that the licensed trade is now showing a degree of enlightened self-interest. We should commend that and hope that it will show even more.
I have encountered a slogan which reads: "If you drink, do not drive; if you drive, do not drink". If we are not to copy the Swedes, who do not allow people to drink and drive at all, perhaps we should introduce a limit of 50 mg. Certainly there is a strong case for reducing the maximum to the level suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
I have a third reason for welcoming the opportunity to follow the right hon. Gentleman. This is a non-party occasion. As far as I know—I cannot imagine why this should not be the case—both parts of the Bill involve good citizenship and good administration; it is relatively rare for such a measure to be debated on the Floor of the House.
I intend to address my remarks solely to part II. Before I do so, however, I should say that I consider it a scandal that we are debating part II at all. More than 20 years ago, I was involved in this very matter as a co-opted member of the GLC highways and traffic committee, latterly the planning and transport committee. This should be a matter not for the House of Commons but for a properly constituted London authority. Alas, there is no properly constituted London authority. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport for the United Kingdom, would not be very popular if he suggested that part of the traffic responsibilities for Glasgow should be handed over by statute to the civil servants in St. Andrew's house, Edinburgh. That, in effect, will be the result of this measure.
The Government will have to do something about traffic in London. Unfortunately, there is no Greater London council or any other London-wide authority that is sufficiently competent to deal with it. We have to ask whether the Bill deals with the right priorities and whether the measure will work. My answer is no to both questions.
London has clearways that were established about 20 years ago. Locally elected people—in both the Greater London council and the boroughs—spent much time considering how they could be established. Bit by bit, clearways were established. A great deal has changed since the old red zones that were established by Mr. Magpies. About 20 years ago a gyratory traffic management system was instituted. Parking is controlled. There are traffic wardens and linked sets of lights. Moreover, co-ordinated traffic management was achieved by the GLC before it was abolished. That led to equilibrium. I understood at the time from the traffic engineers that the flow of traffic, measured in passenger car units per hour over the

network, increased by 25 to 30 per cent. without the construction of any major new roads. The aim was to keep traffic flowing to the maximum possible extent, taking into account the physical limits of the roads.
Leaving aside the controversy over the creation of additional new roads, it was accepted at that time—and it still is—that Professor Buchanan's thesis in his epoch-making "Traffic in Towns" was right: that if we provide even more facilities we generate even more traffic and even more congestion. We need to create equilibrium. Public transport facilities must also be included if we are to reduce congestion to a minimum and improve to the maximum possible extent the flow of all means of transport.
Whatever we do, however, there will always be congestion at times. That is inevitable, for a number of reasons. We have, therefore, to ask ourselves how it can be minimised. That would lead to a reduction in delays. People quite properly object to delays. There are massive and terrible delays in London at times. Generally speaking, however, the big delays are not caused by traffic. That may be so occasionally, due to a football match or other public events. Congestion is usually caused by a number of other factors. Accidents cause delays. Unfortunately, there will always be accidents. Mechanical breakdowns, shed loads and the routine renewal of roads also cause delays. Those are different from the routine renewal of the infrastructure. Moreover, emergency work causes delays. Burst water mains are in a category of their own. They cause delays at the time and the hole that is made in the road takes a long time to repair. Traffic light failures cause delays, as do official events, particularly in central London. Demonstrations lead to delays. An increasing number of delays are caused by vehicles parking by building sites, and by vehicles entering or leaving those sites.
Another cause of delay is illegal parking. Such parking —and parking of any kind, if it is allowed—is only one of all the reasons that I have mentioned. Nevertheless, it is the major issue on which part II is predicated. The red routes are designed to increase traffic flows along certain designated roads in the former GLC area where congestion occasionally occurs. A traffic director is to be appointed for that purpose. I have tried to demonstrate, however, that the flow of traffic on such roads is influenced by a whole host of considerations. The needs of local people—pedestrians, for example, and cyclists—must be taken into account. If traffic flow is to be the only criterion, with no account taken of other legitimate balancing factors, we shall place the wrong emphasis on the director's duties.
Many hon. Members will remember Mr. Bob Bean, a former Member of Parliament for Rochester. Alas, he died early. Bob Bean was a local authority man of great experience. The best story told about him concerns the time when he attended a road engineer's demonstration of a new gyratory system for the middle of his home town of Chatham. The road engineer said, "We are going to have this slip road here and that gyratory there; the flow of vehicles will increase by X per cent., the buses will come in there and speed will increase on average from X to Y miles per hour." The road engineer looked at Mr. Bean, because he knew his Member of Parliament, and said, "And what do you suppose we will do for the pedestrians?" "Give 'em starting blocks" said Bob Bean. All too often in the past


that has been the attitude of some road engineers. I hope that that will not happen, but the emphasis on traffic flow alone suggests that it will.
Other measures ought to be taken immediately. Part II contains 24 clauses. It is a complex measure. Conservative Members often ask why we need so much legislation. The Secretary of State for Transport could implement certain measures straight away. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who was responsible for these matters. The A13 in east London was blocked for months on end. When it was being widened at one point, there was only one traffic lane; vehicles travelled at between six and 10 mph through the cones.
I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to find out why that was so. I found out that it was because the contract for that stretch of road contained no requirement that minimum flows should be maintained. The hon. Gentleman changed that. I hope that what he achieved will be achieved elsewhere. It ought to be written into all contracts. I realise that it will cost money and that the Government do not like spending money. However, the congestion on that stretch of the A 13 caused immense delays for weeks and months on end in Newham.
There was trouble with the Blackwall tunnel. Again, I suppose that it was because the Government wanted to save money. One of the tunnels was closed at weekends, which led to terrific traffic jams throughout east London. One does not expect congestion on Sunday afternoons, but buses and private cars had to endure hours of delay. Further renewal of the Blackwall tunnel is now being undertaken and it is carried out without closing one of the tunnels. The work is taking a long time because it is being done at night. The hon. Member for Eltham was again responsible for reducing what would otherwise have been great congestion. He used common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is not used in many similar places.
I have spent a good deal of time with the Metropolitan police talking about congestion in the London area. Not so long ago there were terrible jams in this area. One reason for the congestion was that when road works were being carried out on the embankment, the right hand turn into Northumberland avenue was not rephased on the lights. It would have been common sense to do so, but nothing was done about it. I understand that the Metropolitan police do not have a central traffic division, so even they experience difficulties.
The police are not mentioned in clause 38, but they are the people on the job and they have been given a rather difficult job. Co-ordination with local authorities does not work The other Sunday in Newham, Bishop road and Commercial road were reduced to one lane, delaying the buses for half an hour or more. There was not a policeman in sight. I got on to Scotland Yard, which said, "The borough did not let us know; it is an unauthorised closure of the road." It is a question of nitty gritty. Planning is not done in London, but it should be. If it were, the proportion of avoidable delays would decrease.
Earlier, I listed some of the causes of delays. About a year ago, I asked the Department to give a breakdown of the general causes of major delays. Not every cause can be identified, but it did not know; the research had not been done. I am not saying that figures could be given to the

nearest percentage, but at least some analysis should be done or Scotland Yard should be given the resources to do it.
The purpose of clause 38, I suppose, is to show that the Secretary of State is doing something about a problem of which hon. Members are only too well aware. I am saying to him, first, that much can be done and, secondly, that the clause will not work in any case. The hapless traffic director will not be the traffic director. He will look after only the red routes, about which, as I know from my involvement in the clearways, there will be plenty of controversy. It took much time and patience. If the director is to have reserve powers and to be able to crash through, as I suspect he will—I regret that my confidence in the Department of Transport is somewhat limited, but one goes as far as one can—there will be trouble. The poor chap does not have enough powers. Under clause 37, he will have powers "in relation to" the red routes. There will be arguments about whether a road is a red route or not, but, having so designated it, he has powers not over traffic that is on the red route but traffic that is "in relation to" it. There is hardly a road in London that does not come within that category.
Will the Secretary of State—I know he has come from Scotland to take up his new job and may not know the answer, but perhaps someone will tell him—say whether the traffic director has control of the traffic system? Following the demise of the GLC, there is layer upon layer of organisation for the maintenance of traffic lights in London, which are controlled quite properly by computer. I believe that they are now controlled by a unit for the City of London. I am not complaining about that, but saying that the traffic director will not have the powers that his name implies and the powers that he will have will be only partial because they will apply only to the red routes. Although there is a need to achieve good traffic flows, as I have suggested, those flows can be achieved in a far simpler, down to earth and efficient way.
I fear that I cannot support part II of the Bill, however much, in spirit, I support part I. They are really two separate Bills. I do not believe that the Bill will work in common-sense practice. I travel 4,000 miles in central London annually and I am able to look around and see what goes on. Will the Secretary of State please consult the people on the job, people in local authorities and the police? He may have done so already. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) is not here. I fear that the Bill will be of limited use and there there are much better ways of achieving its aims without presenting the House with 24 clauses that will set up yet another body in London that we can do without.

Sir Norman Fowler: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State for Transport. I do not wish to limit his political career, but I hope that he stays in the job for some time. Since I left the Department in September 1981, there have been no fewer than seven Secretaries of State for Transport. A Secretary of State every 15 months is a little too high. I warn my right hon. and learned Friend that, although I spent three years in opposition and two and a half years on the Government Front Bench, it brought me


no acceptance with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Nevertheless, it is an important subject.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East—I do not know where he is—referred to my work on deregulating coach services. I have nothing to apologise for, because that provided good, cheap coach services up and down the country. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen opposed that all the way, and in retrospect it was sad that they did so.
On returning to this subject after almost a decade, what strikes me is how public opinion has shifted. It has shifted in respect of traffic offences and traffic restraint. Although I am a director of the National Freight Consortium, I wish to confine my remarks to motorists and passengers rather than freight.
In the 1970s and much of the 1980s, the prevailing view was that traffic laws should be enforced according to some unwritten code, that they were not like other offences and that they were not as serious as those offences. When I was at the Department, I initiated changes that distinguished between major and minor offences and introduced the points system. I therefore accept that some offences should be dealt with more administratively. There is no question about that, and I think that it is accepted by the public.
The other side of the coin is that other traffic offences are undoubtedly criminal. They cause danger, injury and death to the public. Among those, drinking and driving is unquestionably one of the most serious. I entirely back the introduction of all the new offences in the Bill, none more so than causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink. Public opinion rightly condemns such offences and it is entirely right that the law should set out the consequences for such motorists.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) eloquently stated, we should now go one step further and have the so-called random tests, about which over the years we have been rather equivocal. I heard the defence uttered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—I have uttered it myself in the past—that the police do not need such powers. The argument is that if the police have reasonable suspicion, they can stop a car in any event. In some circumstances, that seems to rule out the universal roadside check. If it does not do so, there can be no argument against clarifying the law so that the public know what the legal position is. We are getting into a rather curious position on random tests. We are being told that the power to require random tests exists—we are being told that in the House—but the public are not being told that.
It is not satisfactory to talk with two voices on the issue. If we want random tests, there should be clear provision for them in legislation and that should be clear to the police and the public. The prospect of such checks on Friday and Saturday nights would have quite an impact on conduct in city and town centres. Many of us deplore the present behaviour. A new look at the issue of random checks should be on the agenda of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
My major contention is that, whatever the law is, it should be enforced. At present, traffic laws are not enforced extensively. Anyone who doubts that has only to wait for the snow to lift and the roads to return to normal and then conduct an experiment on the M1 or M6, without contraflows. We all know that any motorist who sticks to a steady 70 mph will be overtaken by a great flow of traffic

going faster. I am not attacking the police—I recognise that our means of enforcing traffic laws have not been kept up to date.
I welcome the fact that the Bill enables photographic evidence of a speeding car to be used. No doubt that will be attacked outside the House as not quite cricket—if cricket analogies can still be used in the political world. The function of enforcing speed limits will never be entirely carried out by patrolling police cars. The police have a range of other priorities that the public place high on the agenda. Photographs are a sensible way of checking speed. They are a random check, but they are likely to be a much greater deterrent to a motorist than being picked up by the occasional police patrol. Their use is not unknown in other countries. In the 1970s, when I wrote a book about the police in Europe, they were used in Germany, and I am sure that they still are.
My concern is about not just the motorways but the enforcement of traffic laws in our cities. On many main routes, congestion slows traffic, but many cars still speed along the side roads and residential roads whenever there is an opportunity. Some local authorities remain almost entirely reluctant to build traffic humps, although that power exists widely. It was first given under the Transport Act 1981, which I introduced. The danger in our cities and towns is to children, old people, pedestrians, cyclists and a range of our citizens who have just as many rights as motorists.
I support the red routes, which are introduced in the Bill, but with one proviso: I believe that, at the same time as those routes are introduced, efforts must be made to deal with traffic on side streets and residential streets. Action must be taken to exclude through traffic and bring down traffic speed. Although the red routes provision will apply only to London, my remarks apply to many other cities.
The congestion and general environment in London are a disgrace to a European capital city. In part, the chaos is inevitable, but when cities such as Birmingham invested in roads such as the Aston expressway, London stood back and did nothing. London faces the traffic projections of the 21st century with roads that are adequate to deal with the conditions of the 19th century. We may regret that, but there is not much that we can do about it now. The opportunity has gone and I cannot think of any road building scheme that will bring relief to London this century.
The inevitable question is how to deal with commuting motorists coming to London in the morning, usually one to a car, and leaving in a great traffic jam in the evening. The red routes are a major part of the Government's strategy. Sympathetic though I am to that proposal, it is only a partial solution, as I said when it was discussed. It is just conceivable that the prospect of open roads will attract more cars into the city, not fewer. If that is not the intention—it should not be our aim—we must do something more about parking restrictions.
I shall listen carefully to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), although I should counsel her against regarding this as a knockabout, party political issue. I live in Sutton Coldfield and in London, where I live in Hammersmith and Fulham. That Labour borough provides free, unrestricted parking for commuters throughout much of its length. In vast stretches of the borough there are no parking meters or parking restrictions. I am therefore delighted to hear that the hon.
Member for Kingston upon Hull, East favours greater use of public transport, but his views would carry greater conviction if we did not have Labour councils providing the obvious means of escaping using public transport or paying a price for using roads.
I assume that that issue can be tackled in due course. I hope that the Labour Front Bench will seek to do so. But this still leaves the question of traffic restraint in general. The least convincing part of "Traffic in London" dealt with traffic restraint. I am less than overwhelmed by the argument on road pricing, that we face
major problems for which there are no easy answers".
That summarises the challenge that faces all central Governments and all local authorities on all issues. I do not see how we can cope in London and, conceivably, in some of our major cities and towns without some restraint on the motorist.
Over the next 10 or 20 years, we face a major increase in traffic. Car use will increase dramatically. We should recognise that the car gives the individual a freedom that he values. I, for one, value the car highly. But life is about balancing freedoms. It does not follow that a motorist's freedom extends to the absolute right to drive into the middle of an already congested city free of charge. Whether by supplementary licensing or by some form of electronic road pricing, we should urgently study the different methods used in other countries and consider how they could apply here. It is for the Government to lead such a study and discussion.
It is argued that the beneficiaries of such a road pricing policy should include passenger transport and other road users such as pedestrians, and I broadly agree. Bus services, for example, would substantially benefit if commuter traffic were reduced and the main routes kept open. I do not turn my back on the idea that some of the revenue from such a pricing policy should go to passenger services. Equally, I hope that more pavement space will be given to pedestrians, and, above all, that cities will be given back to the people who live in them.
Whatever changes are made, the law will have to be enforced. Part of the Bill deals with local authority parking attendants—as opposed to traffic wardens employed by the police. The Bill makes a number of sensible changes, but I am unimpressed by the gradations in the work of the enforcement authorities. Parking attendants can enforce regulations governing permitted parking but cannot enforce controls on illegal parking. Traffic wardens can enforce controls on illegal parking but cannot do anything about moving traffic offences. The police can do everything but will never have the time to enforce all the traffic laws. The time has come to see how we can break down some of those barriers and whether we can develop some form of unified traffic corps for cities such as London, so that all the traffic laws can be enforced all the time.
My main message to the new Secretary of State is this: I believe that we need radical solutions in transport, whether we are dealing with traffic offenders or with the chaos in some of our cities. I also believe—and this is most significant—that the public today are prepared to accept such radical solutions. There has been a great change in attitude since the 1970s and early 1980s. I wish my right hon. and learned Friend well and I hope that he will

urgently consider those radical solutions. If he does, he will go down in history as a great Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that that will be his future.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I shall deal mainly with clauses 1 and 3 but, before doing so, I wish to comment on corporate liability, particularly as it relates to fatigue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) raised the matter in his expert review of the contents of the Bill and the measures that we should consider during its passage to deal with drink-driving. He also referred to the need for new legislation governing the involvement of the police. We must find some way of intervening, while maintaining the balance of personal rights, to ensure the protection of the general public.
Last week I discovered for myself the dangers of fatigue. On Tuesday morning I took part in an early morning programme on Radio 4. The BBC sent a private hire minicab to my flat to collect me. Within 10 minutes of our leaving the flat, the driver had twice been on the wrong side of the road. On the second occasion, I asked him whether he felt unwell and whether there was anything I could do for him. He told me that he had been driving all night and all the previous evening and that I was his last customer. He promised me that when he dropped me off, he would go home to bed. Within minutes of the conversation, the taxi driver had fallen asleep at the wheel. He went through a red light and involved us in an accident. There was severe damage to both cars, but the minicab driver, the driver of the other vehicle and I were lucky: we came out with a few bumps and bruises, a sore neck and a sore back. That incident brought home to me the effects of our inability to police the arrangements, allowing someone to drive for hours on end, to the point at which his fatigue becomes a danger to himself, his passengers and the travelling public. Were it not for pure luck, I should not have been taking part in this debate. I should have been just another figure in the statistics of those killed in road accidents.
Fatigue can kill and it can cause accidents. It is vital that we should legislate to implement practical solutions to deal with the problem. The tachograph is one possibility, although I know that it is controversial in both the public and private sectors of transport. We should seriously consider its introduction into the minicab and private hire businesses because it could act as a deterrent. We cannot allow employers to force their employees to work long unsociable hours—perhaps 10 or 12 hours on end—without having any liability in the event of an accident. We should also ensure that those who drive licensed black cabs work sociable and safe hours and cannot be forced to do otherwise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also referred to corporate liability as it affects the owners of heavy goods vehicles and their ability to force their employees to drive dangerous vehicles. I used to organise the private office of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). One day, the driver of a heavy goods vehicle owned by Calor Gas came to our office. He had been taken on on a temporary contract and told that, if he came up to scratch at the end of the period of that contract, he would be taken on as a full-time regular employee. Some days earlier, he had been stopped by a


police officer and advised that his vehicle was seriously overloaded. He was told that he must return to the depot immediately or face prosecution. The driver complied with that request and returned to the depot in Wigan. The depot manager told him that he must take the vehicle back out or face suspension. He replied that he was not prepared to do what was requested of him because the police had told him that the load was unsafe and in contravention of the Road Traffic Acts. He was not suspended; he was sacked on the spot for failing to obey the depot manager's orders.
I am sure that such occurrences are not unusual. The gentleman concerned had no recourse to an employment tribunal because he was a temporary employee. He had no redress for the fact that his employer had tried to force him to act illegally. Despite an exchange of letters between my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan and the managing director of Calor Gas, that individual was never reinstated. He had to sign on unemployed and seek employment elsewhere in the industry. Such behaviour on the part of employers is quite unacceptable, and I am sure that that case is only the tip of the iceberg. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East found in his own survey, a substantial number of heavy goods vehicles should not be on the road and should not be allowed to return to the road. There is absolutely no doubt that corporate liability is involved. After all, it is not the decision of the driver to take a dangerous vehicle on the roads. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to consider my hon. Friend's valid argument about corporate liability.
I wholeheartedly support the concept and principle behind clauses 1 and 3. Unlike hon. Members who have been here for many years, I cannot claim that I have regularly campaigned for those changes in the House. As a member of the public, I concluded many years ago that the House must take drastic action in relation to drinking and driving. I thought that the House should review the law so that it acts as a deterrent and, when the deterrent does not work, the person responsible for the accident, injury or death should pay in an adequate fashion.
As the law stands at the moment, someone can kill an individual and get off with a fine of only a few hundred pounds even if that person had several other serious convictions against his name and had a long record of having killed or maimed people on the road. Therefore——

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — King's Cross Railways Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall he deemed to have been complied with;

That the Bill shall be presented to this House not later than the seventh day after this day;

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of this House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of this House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the Session 1988–89 which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1988–89 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7 pm

Mr. Gary Waller: The motion before the House is straightforward. It seeks to revive the King's Cross Railways Bill in the same form as it was last debated in the House. It may be helpful if I summarise briefly the principal purposes of the legislation.
First, the Bill provides for a new passenger concourse to serve both King's Cross and St. Pancras stations, replacing the present temporary structure for which planning permission expires in 1995. It will also provide greatly improved facilities for passengers using the two stations. Secondly, it provides for a new link between the east coast main line and St. Pancras station, so that the spare capacity at the latter can relieve the present limitations on capacity at King's Cross. Thirdly, it expands the capacity of the Underground station to reduce congestion and improve interchange between the Underground and British Rail. Fourthly, it will connect the east coast main line to Thameslink so that through-Network SouthEast services can operate from Cambridgeshire and west Norfolk to Gatwick airport, Sussex and Kent. Fifthly, it allows for the construction of a low-level station for Thameslink and for international services running from London and the north of England and Scotland via the channel tunnel to Paris and Brussels.
The House strongly endorsed the Bill's Second Reading last May by 211 votes to 41 and it has been exhaustively examined by a Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). The Committee sat in public for a record 51 days, as Committee members will vividly recall, spread over a year, and it made several amendments which were


fully accepted by the promoters. The House will, of course, have an opportunity to reflect on those when the Bill is considered, and on Third Reading, before it moves to another place.
In giving attention to this revival motion, some hon. Members may be concerned at the continuing delay and uncertainty surrounding the future of the rail link between Folkestone and London. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), then Secretary of State for Transport, announced the safeguarding of the eastern end of the route between Folkestone and the Medway in September this year and British Rail is currently studying route options between there and King's Cross. It is considering not only its own proposed routes through south-east London, but also proposals from other interested parties involving an approach through east London. However, it is worth recalling that whatever route is chosen, both British Rail and Ove Arup have endorsed the need for it to run to King's Cross.
On 14 June my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport said:
There seems to be general agreement that any service will need to terminate at King's Cross. In our view, nothing in this statement invalidates the benefits to British Rail of the House proceeding with the King's Cross Bill."—[Official Report, 14 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 483.]

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As far as my constituents in the north-west are concerned, this is an extremely important Bill. Will my hon. Friend use his undoubted influence with British Rail to impress on the company the fact that it appears to have seriously underestimated the number of passenger journeys and the amount of freight that is likely to use the line? Will he ask British Rail whether it would be good enough to up its ideas to other forecasts and provide more trains as that would be of enormous assistance to my area in the north-west?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. When the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) responds to that intervention, I am sure that he and all hon. Members will bear in mind that we are considering a revival motion, so the debate is on a procedural point. I appreciate that to make out an argument for or against the motion there must be some reference to the Bill's merits, but that should be somewhat restricted.

Mr. Waller: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) that this is an important measure, and she will agree that it is vital that the revival motion be accepted so that she and others have opportunities to make their points. I agree that King's Cross is, in a sense, the hub of links between the north of England and London. It is important that British Rail should bear in mind the need to provide sufficient services to cater for the many people wishing to travel by rail between the north and south.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Can the hon. Gentleman throw any light on last week's news that there will be a substantial delay in the running of through trains from continental Europe to the north-east of England via King's Cross? Does that delay arise from these

proceedings, or is there some other reason for it? The answer to that would help us to know whether we should support or oppose this revival motion.

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that there appears to be a delay in the delivery of the international trains capable of running between the continent and the north of England and Scotland. British Rail is committed to providing those trains as soon as possible, and tenders will be sought within a month. Only one consortium—GEC Alsthorn—is capable of building those trains, and unfortunately it cannot deliver them before June 1993. However, money is not a problem. In the interim, trains will run from the north of England and Scotland to Waterloo to connect with trains from London to Paris and Brussels. As the hon. Gentleman said, there will be a delay and the trains will not be available before 1993, but that in no way reduces BR's commitment to provide those trains. The Bill is necessary to ensure that an expanded King's Cross will be available—at a later date than the international trains. It will probably take six years to construct the low-level station and its associated facilities once the preliminary legislation and other planning requirements are in place.

Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has picked up the baton from his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who has gone on to greater things. Perhaps that is a harbinger for the career prospects of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). However, the hon. Gentleman said that King's Cross was the only location that British Rail was willing to consider for the new station. I take it that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee which considered the King's Cross Railways Bill and which clearly stated that "it regretted that it was not in its remit to hear detailed evidence about the suitability of Stratford" in my constituency as an alternative. That is a failing in the Bill, and also in this whole procedure, and that is why I shall oppose the revival motion.

Mr. Waller: It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), like my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who originally took over responsibility for sponsoring the Bill through the House, has been promoted to the Whips Office.
With only one exception, all those who have suggested that an alternative route should be provided from Folkestone to link up with London and go on to the north of England and Scotland have agreed that a central London interchange is required and that it should be at King's Cross. That certainly goes for Ove Arup.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The hon. Gentleman talked about the number of trains which might go to the north-east or to Scotland. When the Bill was last before the House British Rail talked of three trains a day. Has that number increased or decreased?

Mr. Waller: I am conscious of Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction, but as yet British Rail has made no change in its plans. It has stated clearly on numerous occasions that it will monitor the demand for services and will respond speedily to that demand.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In relation to consideration of the revival motion, it might be pertinent for hon. Members to know when British Rail expects to make its announcement about the continued route from the channel tunnel beyond the boundary between Kent and Greater London. I have informal indications, but if the hon. Gentleman were able to give the House a clearer and more express indication—I am not trying to put him on the spot as he may not be able to do so—it would be helpful. Some hon. Members think that what happens at King's Cross is entirely or highly related to the line from the channel tunnel and to alternative stations for the terminus for traffic from the channel tunnel port, and whether King's Cross or Stratford should be bigger or smaller relates to a timetable which, as yet, is formally secret. Can the hon. Gentleman help us?

Mr. Waller: British Rail clearly maintains that, regardless of any future plans about the link—I am sorry that I am not able to enlighten the hon. Gentleman any further about the possible date for a future announcement —the requirement for an expanded King's Cross station, or King's Cross and St. Pancras station with a new concourse serving both, will still exist. The requirement for that improvement in station facilities arises not only from new international services, which will certainly come into existence before any new link is constructed, but from Thameslink services and the existing link between King's Cross and the north of England and Scotland. The need for the revival motion to be passed exists regardless of any future announcement which may or may not be made about the link from King's Cross to Folkestone.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Waller: I am reluctant to give way at this stage. My hon. Friends will have opportunities to make their own points later. If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I should like to proceed with my speech, which may enlighten them or at least set the scene for the debate.
I stress again that, even in the interim period before the rail link is built, international trains could reach King's Cross via an upgraded Thameslink route which crosses the river at Blackfriars. Again, I stress the importance of the Bill to domestic rail and Underground services.
The other major announcement since the House last considered the Bill was that made by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), relating to crossrail—the new under-ground line between Paddington and Liverpool street, linking Network SouthEast services in London. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), may consider that that strengthens the claim of Stratford to be reconsidered as an international terminal, and when crossrail is completed it will certainly offer better access to central London from Stratford than exists at present on the overcrowded Central line, but Stratford can never offer the substantial advantages available at King's Cross, which is well served by other BR and underground lines and is easily accessible from central London by bus and taxi.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Waller: King's Cross will be better served by bus and taxi when the Bill is passed and the new facilities are in operation. As well as accommodating through trains——

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waller: I am reluctant to give way again, but I will give way one last time.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this specific point. The evidence presented to the Select Committee which considered the King's Cross Railways Bill indicated that at peak hours traffic in the King's Cross area would increase by 75 per cent. How can bus and taxi access to King's Cross possibly be improved as a result of a Bill which will generate that much increased traffic?

Mr. Waller: There has been some debate on the matter. King's Cross has such a wide range of InterCity, Network SouthEast, and London Underground services that relatively few international passengers would use private cars and taxis for access to and from the terminal. British Rail's road traffic consultants have advised that the additional vehicles generated by the international station can be accommodated by the local main road network, allowing for growth caused by the King's Cross railways land development. British Rail is also in discussion with the Department of Transport and local boroughs on possible trunk road alterations, coupled with measures to improve the environment in side streets.
As well as accommodating through trains from Paris and Brussels to the north of England and Scotland, King's Cross will provide excellent interchange for international passengers, with InterCity services to the east midlands, Yorkshire, the north-east and Scotland, and with Network SouthEast trains to the north of London, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
In a separate Bill, the promoters are seeking powers for a short connecting line to link the west coast main line with King's Cross so as to allow international trains to run via the new station to the west midlands and the north-west. That will be welcome information for my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has said that one of the promoters, British Rail, is introducing a separate Bill allegedly to meet its promise, which this Bill does not, to assist in respect of through services to the north-west. Will the hon. Gentleman make any reference to the King's Cross Bill being promoted by London Underground, which is one of the joint promoters of the Bill, or will he leave the House in ignorance of the fact that it is promoting a Bill which is directly related to this Bill and which includes a clause identical to clause 19 of this Bill which the Committee unanimously rejected and threw out?

Mr. Waller: It is well known that London Underground is a joint promoter. In a separate Bill, which was deposited last month, London Regional Transport is seeking powers for new subway links at King's Cross. Those powers are being sought in a separate Bill because of the urgent need to carry out the works to meet the recommendations of the Fennell report. Other changes in


the Underground station—for instance, a new and larger ticket hall and better connections to main line stations —remain part of this Bill.
The principles of the Bill were firmly endorsed on Second Reading and the project had a thorough and detailed examination in Committee. At the end of last Session, there was not time to pass a motion to carry the Bill over. The motion seeks only that the Bill should be revived in this Session so that those deliberations can be properly concluded.

Mr. Chris Smith: I begin by expressing my considerable concern, because I understand that Conservative Members are on a two-line Whip. This is a private Bill, which is being promoted by British Rail. Therefore, the motion should be left to the free decision of hon. Members of all parties. If Conservative Members are indeed on a two-line Whip for any votes that may come later, it behoves the House to ask the Government whether they are now proposing and promoting the Bill and whether it is now Government policy, because if it is——

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to let pass this opportunity to correct his misapprehension. This is private business and there is no Government Whip on any votes that may take place on this business.

Mr. Smith: I have to accept in good faith what the Minister says. However, several of the Minister's hon. Friends appear to be under the impression that that was the case. If the Government are actively backing the Bill, my constituents will want to be very clear that that is happening.
A further technical point needs to be raised at the outset. The Select Committee, which considered the Bill and placed its report before the House on 26 June—the report has yet to be debated as have any amendments arising from it—will have to meet again to consider the amendments that the Committee itself has said that it wishes to table together with those amendments that it is requiring British Rail to make. Four hon. Members served on the Select Committee and did a sterling job in listening to many hours of debate and discussion. Although I demur from its central conclusion that the Bill should proceed, the Committee's report nonetheless made a number of extremely valuable and trenchant points, especially about British Rail's conduct throughout this saga. I understand that two of those Back-Bench Members have now received positions of some importance in Government ranks. Is it therefore possible that the original Committee that considered the Bill might have to change its membership further to consider the Bill if we give the carry-over motion the go-ahead tonight?
That is an important point, because a Select Committee that examines a private Bill must be composed of Back-Bench Members who have no direct involvement in the matters under discussion. It would be useful for the House to know from the Government, the promoters or, in due course, from yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the exact constitutional position in the House if a Select Committee on a private Bill has to reconvene but two of

its members have a different standing in the House from what they had when the Bill was originally considered by them.
I have never made any secret of my strong opposition to the Bill and to the manner in which British Rail has promoted it. The King's Cross terminus will destroy homes, jobs and businesses in my constituency. It will create traffic chaos and congestion. It will not sensibly serve the north, the north-west and Scotland, despite the claims which British Rail has consistently and erroneously made to the contrary. Furthermore, the Bill is still being actively promoted before any firm decisions about the high-speed link have been taken. I remain very much of that basic view about the Bill's inadequacies.
There are also a number of specific reasons why I believe that the Bill should not be carried over for further consideration this Session. First, British Rail is currently undertaking what is supposedly an independent review of all the various options both for the link from the channel to London and on the choice of King's Cross as the proposed location for the second international terminus. That investigation is being carried out by the Rail Link Project. We must question how a proper assessment of the options for the high-speed link and for the London terminus for channel tunnel traffic can be carried out if the outcome of that assessment is effectively predetermined by this Bill continuing to progress. That is exactly what will happen. If the Bill progresses—if the Government put their backing behind it, and if it is clear that King's Cross is the choice for the location—the work that is being conducted by the Rail Link Project will not be worth the paper that it is written on. I suspect that it would be revealed for the charade that it really is—a sop to try to dampen the criticism—and not a real consideration of the alternative proposals for either the location of the station or the route to it from the channel.
I have so far received many papers from the Rail Link Project, relating especially to the work being carried out by PIEDA—the Planning, Industrial and Economic Advisers —on the socio-economic and development impacts of the different route options. One section entitled "Station Area Studies" states:
Each of the areas around proposed stations"—
presumably that must include King's Cross—
will have different characteristics: for example, in the labour market and housing market, in the planning and development context, and in the opportunities which the Rail Link might create.
That is indeed the case, because one argument about this issue is the way in which King's Cross would suffer rather than benefit from the terminus being located there, whereas an alternative location, such as Stratford, might well benefit economically and socially from the station being located there.
Those are important issues and I cannot see how they can be properly and independently considered without prejudice by the consultants appointed by British Rail if the Bill ploughs on at exactly the same speed as previously by means of this carry-over motion.
My second point is linked to the first. There is still no decision on the high-speed link or its funding. We do not know where it is to go or how it will be paid for. There have been some reports in the press in the past few days that the Government may be revising their view. The former Secretary of State for Transport said that, although there would be no public money for the high-speed link,


there might be some for commuter services, but even that was not stated firmly. However, we now read that the Government may be having second thoughts and that there may be some money for the high-speed link. It would be useful to know from the Minister whether that is the case and whether the Government are having a rethink. While there is still confusion about the Government's policy, we do not know how the high-speed link will be paid for or where it will run.
Until those questions are answered, it is an absurdity to press ahead with a Bill which identifies a specific location for the end point of a rail link which itself is indeterminate. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to suggest that there is no need to know anything about the high-speed link before we make the decision about locating the station at King's Cross. To locate the station at King's Cross would predetermine an enormous amount about the location of the high-speed link. To attempt to divorce the two, as the hon. Gentleman did and as British Rail has consistently done throughout the passage of the Bill, is disingenuous in the extreme.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that it may be possible to make a decision on the high-speed link in three months. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in that case we should defer the revival of the Bill by voting against the motion tonight? We would then have just the information that the hon. Gentleman, I and others would wish to have, even taking into account the points made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). That would give us an opportunity to decide on the substance of the Bill with all the facts at our disposal. Would not that be a better way forward?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which is extremely important for several constituencies in south London. The route that the high-speed link takes from the London boundary towards King's Cross will be extremely important and controversial. If the House deferred the Bill tonight, at least we should know what British Rail was proposing when we considered the Bill further.
The third reason why the Bill should not be carried over is that the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill has been deposited in the House. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Keighley made so little of it. It is an extremely important Bill. It lifts large sections of proposed work out of the King's Cross Railways Bill and proposes them as a separate Bill. It is promoted by London Underground. It provides for the work required by the Fennell report, into the tragic fire at King's Cross—in which several of my constituents sadly lost their lives—to be carried out. That work is undoubtedly needed.
Clearly, London Underground has realised the state of play on the King's Cross Railways Bill, read the report of the Select Committee, examined the amendments that the Committee required and taken into account the time that the House of Lords will take to consider it and decided that it is not a game of soldiers that it wants to continue to be involved in. Therefore, it has decided to bring forward the essential Fennell works in a separate Bill ahead of time.
British Rail previously used the argument that it had to go ahead with the King's Cross Railways Bill in order to carry out the Fennell works in the underground station.
That argument has now been completely shot away because the works are included in the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill.
I must trespass briefly on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by noting that clause 19 in the King's Cross Railways Bill, which sought to remove listed building consent powers from English Heritage and the relevant planning authorities, and which the Select Committee roundly condemned and required to be deleted, resurfaces in the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill as clause 20. I am sure that several hon. Members will have more to say on that when the Bill comes before the House. The separately promoted London Underground (King's Cross) Bill contains precisely the same clause and provision that was so strongly condemned by the Select Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill.

Mr. Beith: I am disturbed by what the hon. Gentleman says. If that outrageous clause reappears, a great deal of time and energy will have been wasted. Can the hon. Gentleman recall whether any undertaking was given by the promoters of this Bill that the clause would not be proceeded with? What value does he place on that undertaking? I shall seek to show later that undertakings given by British Rail are not reliable. I am extremely disturbed to find that the clause reappears in the new Bill.

Mr. Smith: I am tempted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about undertakings given by British Rail. He should remember that the new Bill is promoted by London Underground, not British Rail, but London Underground is a joint promoter of the Bill before us.
The Select Committee required that clause 19 be deleted. It was a strong and clear requirement in the Select Committee's report. Eventually British Rail grudgingly said that it would comply with that requirement, but the provision has cropped up again in relation to the London Underground works.

Mr. Waller: It is clear from the reactions of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and other hon. Members that they imagine that clause 19 is being re-enacted to apply to the works proposed in the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill, which is promoted by London Underground. Clearly, the Select Committee which considers that Bill will want to consider the clause in the context of the Fennell recommendations.

Mr. Smith: I made clear to the House what I specifically referred to. As the provision in clause 19 was the subject of such a strong recommendation by the Select Committee, it seems odd that it should reappear in a further Bill. Paragraph 50 of the Select Committee's report says:
The second reason for our rejection of clause 19 is that in our view it would set a deplorable precedent.
That is pretty strong language for a Select Committee and I hope that London Underground will take good note of it and of what has been said tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
If London Underground removes clause 20 from the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill, I for one will have no objection to the Bill proceeding as rapidly as possible on to the statute book. But if it insists on including clause 20—which reflects the previous clause 19 in the King's Cross Railways Bill—in spite of the urgency


of the Fennell requirements, the Bill should be opposed on the ground that it ignores the enormously important issue of principle which the Select Committee identified.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that London Underground will take heed of that point. It has not only ignored a unanimous view expressed by the Select Committee five months before its new Bill was presented to the House, but included the same clause in other Bills. The same clause appears in the London Underground Bill, which deals with the Jubilee line. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has observed and criticised that, as I have. London Underground should have got the message that the clause is unacceptable in any Bill. I hope that it will excise it from every Bill in which it appears. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill on the Jubilee line should be accepted only if London Underground removes a similar clause from it?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The strong feelings that many of us have about attempts to undermine the heritage provisions of our planning system by means of private Bills is something that experienced promoters, as both British Railways and London Underground are—it is not as if they are naive and new to the job—should take on board.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I wish to add my word of support, thus making the opposition to clause 20 all party. If it appears in any form in any Bill, it will be opposed strongly by hon. Members on both sides of the House regardless of party-political allegiance.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has taken a keen interest in that issue and in the Bill that is before us.
The fourth reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with in the new Session is that considerable doubt now exists about the future of the railway lands development at King's Cross. In its report on the proposals for the channel tunnel terminus, the Select Committee drew attention to the important financial links between the proposed office and commercial developments on the railway lands behind King's Cross and St. Pancras stations and the proposal for the new station to go ahead. It identified the proceeds of the sale of the railway lands and the subsequent development as an important element in the financial viability of the station proposals that British Rail was making. The Select Committee set store on the fact that there is a close interlinking between the proposal for the new station and the proposal for office development on the railway lands. The proposal for the office development is still very much in a process of flux, negotiation and doubt. It is subject to planning consideration currently by the planning authority and the London borough of Camden, together with advice and comments from the London borough of Islington. It is subject to a number of local-planning-for-real exercises, in which people are together putting forward proposals that set out what they would like to see built on the railway lands. It will be some time, inevitably, before conclusions on the nature of the railway lands development are reached.
Meanwhile, the property market is uncertain. The economic climate is not good for large-scale developments. The principal partners in the proposed railway lands

development are not as financially flush as they were when the proposals were first being made. We must ask whether we can be sure that British Rail will be able to finance the station development that it is proposing, bearing in mind the considerable uncertainty about the commercial and office developments on the railway lands. It is an important consideration. It was referred to by the Select Committee, and the reasons for its doubt and uncertainty about financial viability have been magnified several-fold by the market conditions that have developed since it published its report. In the light of that, we should pause for thought before launching ourselves yet further into the process of the Bill.
The fifth reason that I advance to support my argument that the Bill should not be proceeded with is that inadequate consideration has been given to the road traffic implications of what is being proposed in the Bill. The hon. Member for Keighley made brief reference to the advice of Halcrow Fox, the consultant which has been employed by British Rail. Its laughable advice is that the traffic that would be generated by the proposed station could be contained within the existing road system or network. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not read in detail the Select Committee's report or the evidence that was provided to the Select Committee. The Committee referred to the Halcrow Fox proposals. It is worth remembering that Halcrow Fox changed its tune during its assessment of the road traffic implications of the Bill.
The Select Committee said that it had listened to what Halcrow Fox had to say as well as to the Department of Transport. The Department said that in its view the Halcrow Fox figures underestimated the impact on road traffic of the proposed station. That is before we start talking about construction traffic and the work that would have to be done to the railway lines. The Department estimates that instead of the 40 to 50 per cent. increase in road traffic that Halcrow Fox was talking about—that would be bad enough—the increase would be nearer to 65 to 75 per cent. That would be the increase in traffic at peak hours.
The hon. Member for Keighley made much of the bus links with King's Cross. Anyone who has tried to travel by bus through the King's Cross interchange at peak hours will know that at present it is appallingly congested. If we are talking about a 75 per cent. increase in traffic—that is the conservative estimate of the Department of Transport —I shudder to think of the traffic congestion and chaos in the immediate gyratory system around King's Cross and in the whole of north and east London. My constituents will be powerfully and deeply affected by the traffic chaos that will be generated by the location of the new station at King's Cross.
It is not good enough for British Rail to say that everyone who arrives from Paris or Brussels will immediately get on an underground train or British Rail train at King's Cross to travel elsewhere in the country. Some people will do that, of course, but an enormous number will take taxis to travel to business meetings. Many others will be met by car by friends or relatives. Others will want to board coaches, buses or specially hired vehicles. There will be an enormous increase in the road traffic in the area.
Unless British Rail wakes up to that fact and starts talking seriously with the Department of Transport about how best the impact of the increase in traffic on those who live and work in the immediate area of King's Cross and


beyond can be alleviated, it does not deserve to have the Bill carried forward. The traffic implications have not been properly considered and researched. They need much further and deeper consideration.
My sixth reason—a linked reason—is that the road traffic impact may be exacerbated by some of the provisions that are set out in the Road Traffic Bill, which was being discussed earlier this evening. That Bill would give the Secretary of State for Transport the power to designate priority routes to assist with the movement of traffic. We have not heard from the Secretary of State or from the Department what they would propose for the potential designation of priority routes in the King's Cross area. Until we know that, it is difficult to judge exactly the transport implications of the proposed station.
The seventh reason for not advancing with the Bill is that the Select Committee required that a series of amendments should be made to it. First, it said that it would propose a right of reversion so that if property was compulsorily purchased but had not been developed within 10 years, that property would revert to the original owner at the original price. We know that that is the Select Committee's intention, but the precise proposal is riot in the Bill.
The Select Committee also insisted on the deletion of clause 19 and the inclusion of what became known as plot 51. The House will no doubt recall from earlier debates that plot 51 is the piece of land that is needed to make the platforms longer to take the trains. British Rail had attempted to introduce a Bill that included a provision for platforms that were too short to take the cross-channel trains. The sheer incompetence in British Rail's detailed presentation has been breathtaking—the failure to take account of the length of the platforms is the finest example of that.
British Rail was not only incompetent enough to advance a proposal that was inadequate in the first place, but, to everyone's surprise, it stuck by it for several days of Committee evidence until it was forced to admit that it would be much more sensible to introduce a further proposal to extend the area of works to include plot 51. The Committee is right to insist that that inclusion should be made.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has made a number of telling points, but I hope that he will leave enough of them for the seven or so hon. Members who also want to speak. My hon. Friend has missed one small point, however, relating to the whole notion of having a second London channel tunnel station. When the original Channel Tunnel Bill was discussed, we were told that there would be one terminus in London. It is clear that past errors are vast, so how can anyone view with any seriousness the opinions and calculations that British Rail is now making?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a strong point and certainly the saga of British Rail and the channel tunnel has been one of error compounded upon error.
Originally, Waterloo was judged the location for channel tunnel traffic. British Rail argued that one terminus would be sufficient and that Waterloo was the bee's knees. At the same time it specifically ruled out King's Cross as a viable option because of the classic congestion that would be caused by the location of such a

terminus. That was only four years ago, but now British Rail is saying that King's Cross is the only location that makes sense. It was not singing that tune four years ago.
The Select Committee has required that a subway link to St. Pancras should be enshrined in the Bill, but no such requirement appears. It has also required that the compensation zone should be extended. That does not require an amendment to be made to the Bill, but an undertaking from British Rail. However, one has to take such undertakings with a pinch of salt.
I also understand that the points of access to the proposed station development are to be reconsidered. We do not have any of the amendments before us and therefore we do not know the detail. We know that they are to appear, but we cannot seriously consider this Bill any further until we know precisely what amendments will be made.
I know that other hon. Members want to participate, but there are a couple more reasons why we should not proceed with the Bill. The eighth reason against such further consideration is the environmental impact assessment that is referred to by the Select Committee. It is welcome as far as it goes, but it should be extended. We do not know when British Rail will come forward with any conclusions on that, but the Bill involves the destruction of an incalculably valuable natural park in Camley street. It is valued by hundreds if not thousands of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn arid St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), especially children. The destruction of that natural park deserves a better environmental assessment to be made. We do not have such an assessment in front of us, so how can we possibly continue to consider the Bill?

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman's argument is tautologous. The environmental impact assessment that the Select Committee required to be updated is currently in hand. It will be made available before the House has an opportunity to debate the issue any further. However, how can the House consider such an assessment and any further updated information unless it has an opportunity to reconsider the Bill? That can happen only if the motion before us is passed.

Mr. Smith: That is the first time we have had anything remotely resembling a guarantee from British Rail that that updated environmental impact assessment will be with us before we consider the Bill further. That appears to be the guarantee from the hon. Gentleman and, as he is the sponsor of the Bill, I grab it gladly and welcome it. As yet, however, all we have is the word of British Rail that that work is under way. We are entitled to be somewhat sceptical of the manner in which British Rail has conducted itself, and may yet conduct itself, in relation to the Bill.
The ninth reason why the Bill should not proceed is that there is still uncertainty about the future of the east-west crossrail. That route is crucial to links in the west. If we press ahead with the development of King's Cross and that crossrail goes ahead, we may find that we have ruled out the possibility of transport links to the west and to Wales that might have been available if an alternative location, such as Stratford, had been chosen. The Government should make clear their position on the east-west crossrail, as it will have a profound impact on the viability of Stratford as against King's Cross. I know that the


Government have announced that they want to go ahead with that crossrail, but the Treasury has, as yet, made no announcement about the money available to British Rail for that link.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman may know from previous exchanges in the Chamber on that specific issue that I have given a clear commitment that the Government will make the resources available to British Rail and London Underground to complete the east-west crossrail. I have given that commitment on two occasions and I repeat it tonight.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance and I hope that he is right. However, the figures do not appear in the autumn statement plans for public expenditure. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will win his battles with the Treasury and will come up with the required funding.
The Bill has so many flaws and imperfections and there is so much that we still need to know about its consequences that it would be foolish for the House to continue consideration of it now. In its report, the Select Committee, in the strongest language that I have ever known a Select Committee use, said that it was deeply unhappy about the task that it had been given to do in considering the Bill, deeply unhappy about British Rail's conduct, deeply unhappy about the imperfections in Committee procedure and deeply unhappy about the exclusion of Stratford and other alternatives from the consideration that it was able to give the Bill. With such regret and unhappiness being expressed by a Select Committee, the best thing is for us to stop for a moment or two and ask British Rail whether it would be best to go back to the drawing board and start all over again.
I reiterate as strongly as I can why my constituents and I believe that British Rail has made the wrong decision. It should scrap the Bill now and start the process of thinking strategically about how best to maximise properly the benefits of channel tunnel traffic, rather than by means of the tawdry private Bill procedure that we have experienced over the last year and a half. King's Cross will not be able to cope. It is already the most congested part of London, both above and below ground; the Bill would impose millions of extra passengers on that already congested link.
British Rail itself ruled out the King's Cross option four years ago. It has not properly considered the alternatives. Its current examination of the options is either a serious exercise, in the light of which the Bill should be called off, or it is not. It is still conducting a vigorous campaign to promote King's Cross as the desired option while nominally conducting a review of that decision. The Bill would destroy a substantial slice of my constituency and create traffic chaos across much of north London. It would not even bring very much benefit to the north, despite British Rail's claims to the contrary. It is time that the House said, "Enough is enough" and denied the Bill the chance to proceed any further.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): What a pleasure it is to have on the Front Bench, if only briefly, the Chairman of the Select Committee which examined the Bill with such assiduity and acidity. We owe my hon. Friend the Member

for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and his colleagues an enormous debt. Today I have been reminded that when Brunel was arguing for the Great Western railway, the Select Committee which considered his proposals sat for 57 days, but the quality of those Committee members was nothing like so high as the quality of those who sat under the Chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton.
Since we last considered the Bill, a number of welcome changes have occurred. There is a new chairman of British Rail who seems able to take a wider view of his responsibilities than his predecessor. Whether he will be able to reform the hierarchy that he has inherited to the extent that I firmly believe is necessary remains to be seen, but I have certainly been persuaded that the new chairman of British Rail is determined to ensure that the review of the rail link proposals, station policy, environmental impact and many other factors is more thorough, open and public than anything that his predecessor was able to promise. A great many hon. Members present today should take credit for having helped to ensure that outcome.
I believe that great progress has been made. When I consider the arrogant contempt with which alternative proposals to British Rail's preferred route were treated for the first two and a half or more years of negotiations, the care and courtesy with which we are now being informed of an intention to examine the options seriously come as a welcome change. I have just come from a small meeting including, among other people, the managing director of the channel tunnel rail link project, and it was perfectly clear that British Rail has now agreed that the rail Europe proposal is technically possible. It requires to be evaluated for commercial and financial viability and has to stand comparison with other proposals, but at one stage British Rail was treating that proposal as though it were some sort of back-of-an-envolope joke. It is an enormous improvement that British Rail now accepts it as a technically viable proposition.
We should be grateful to British Rail that it has now established a whole range of studies, albeit late in the day. Nevertheless, the studies should make it possible for those outside as well as inside British Rail to form a judgment as to the right way forward for this massive investment in transport infrastructure. For example, the PIEDA study is to look at the proposed international and domestic stations to see how they act as catalysts for demographic and commercial change. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) whether PIEDA will be looking at the demographic and commercial changes that will be introduced under the King's Cross option. I am assuming that it will, because King's Cross is clearly one of the international stations on the proposed route. If it does consider the likely changes and comes up with a proposition that those changes would be disastrous for the district, what would happen to British Rail's judgment about the King's Cross Railways Bill? If the PIEDA study came to that conclusion, it would reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who made the case so forcefully, that we should delay presenting the Bill. If the independent consultants recently appointed to assess what the demographic and commercial changes from a station are likely to be were to come up with a report suggesting that


it would he disastrous for that part of London, it would be better to take note of that before the Bill was produced and revived rather than afterwards.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and of the Select Committee that the traffic problem will be dangerous. Paragraph 65 of the Select Committee's report states:
We believe that a satisfactory solution to the potential problems of increased traffic must be found before the Bill is allowed to proceed to Royal Assent.
In saying that, the Select Committee was saying in as clear terms as possible that to take the Bill forward without having worked out exactly how to cope with the traffic would be totally unacceptable. We are talking not just about railway-generated traffic. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir. G. Young) first brought forward the Bill, he gave three principal reasons why it should be accepted. The second was the need to bring hack into use derelict land and to produce 30,000 jobs at King's Cross, in a preferred office location. Any right hon. or hon. Member who thinks that 30,000 jobs can be created without severely exacerbating traffic congestion needs his head examined. What about delivery vans, catering lorries, the shops needed to sustain those 30,000 workers, and the couriers who would travel to and from those offices? A whole host of vehicles would be trying to find their way around servicing 30,000 jobs at the back of King's Cross. The mind boggles.

Mr. Don Dixon: I wish that we had that problem up north.

Mr. Rowe: There is a very severe problem even closer when it comes to jobs. The creation of 30,000 jobs in and around Stratford would be extremely welcome. That alternative should be closely examined, and there is a good case for postponing the Bill for that purpose.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has listened with exemplary care, and has paid exemplary attention to the details of the scheme. He has shown a far more open mind than his predecessor, who I always suspected fell into the trap of listening to British Rail rather too readily, and then feeling that he had to justify the position that he had adopted. In the earlier debate, we were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) that
we have not yet approved the British Rail investment case for King's Cross, and we look forward to looking at it"— [Official Report, 8 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 634.]
I assume that, all these months later, the Government have examined the investment case for King's Cross and have approved it—though I do not recall reading of that development.

Mr. Freeman: I confirm that no investment proposition has been put by British Rail to the Department, and I do not believe that any investment proposition is imminent. When a proposition is put for the King's Cross development as a whole, it will receive the Department's careful consideration, but no approval has been given.

Mr. Rowe: The private Bill procedure, which has always been the bane of our lives, grows more incomprehensible by the moment. We have before us a Bill relating to a railway whose route has not been determined, and whose financial viability has certainly not been

realistically assessed, and to a station whose financial viability has not been assessed either. That sums up the whole debate beautifully.

Mr. Freeman: I thought that my hon. Friend wanted to keep an open mind.

Mr. Rowe: An open mind is of tremendous value, but if one is to keep one's mind open to such an extent, perhaps the Bill should also be left to be determined at a later date.
The value of the land to be developed should be taken into account in any investment proposal, although I suspect that it is worth a great deal less now than when the Bill first came before the House. I drew attention on a previous occasion to the Confederation of British Industry's observation that if all the office space that British Rail is seeking to develop at King's Cross were actually built, it would oversubscribe London's office needs by 5 per cent.—and that was in 1989.
We have as the undertaker for the development an operation which is a state-owned industry. The managing director of the channel tunnel rail link, who is a former senior official of the Department of Transport, told me, "It is not really for us to look at the wider issues—it is for us to see what we as British Rail can do to maximise our benefits." We have, growing on the east side of London, a massive office development that is badly under-served by public transport and in some difficulties as a result. We have a publicly-owned undertaking busily engaged in establishing a competitor to that vulnerable east London development, and insisting that it be served by a transport route which to a large extent would destroy the likelihood of any improvement to east London's transport infrastructure.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the east London situation raises questions which go beyond office development because it is symbolic of the likely move of the centre of London eastwards? That makes an even stronger case for the development of Stratford in strategic terms.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is right. It is reasonable for British Rail to think that some international passengers will want to travel into King's Cross, and it is equally reasonable for British Rail to make arrangements for the line to be continued from Stratford to King's Cross. British Rail's chairman made it very clear that he saw the line from Stratford to King's Cross as an integral part of British Rail's plans for the next century, and I agree. It would be of great value to domestic and international passengers if such a route were provided. However, if that were its principal purpose, it would be quite unnecessary to develop King's Cross on the scale that is proposed.
The development of a major terminal at Stratford would make sense for every possible reason—not only because it would serve a rapidly-growing freight demand right along the north of Kent but because it would make possible the development of an impoverished part of London rather than drive unwanted development into one of the most congested parts of the capital. I agree with my hon. Friend that London is moving eastwards and that more account should be taken of that, whereas the Bill moves in the opposite direction.
I welcome the growing support in recent months for the Stratford option. The Kent chambers of commerce have come out in favour of it, as has the London and South


Eastern Regional Planning Conference, and Kent county council is much more interested in that option than it was before. Many other organisations are developing an interest in Stratford.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley can confirm that one of the changes since we last debated the Bill is the substitution of a spur railway for the travelator, which was meant to ensure that people from Manchester and the north-west had a trouble free journey to the international railway. It was exciting to think that one could get off a train at Euston, get on a travelator and whirr along to King's Cross. I hope I am right in my understanding that a spur of the main railway is now proposed rather than a travelator.

Mr. Waller: I understand that there are difficulties in providing a travelator—desirable though such a scheme may be in theory—because of the foundations of the new British Library. Therefore, it is necessary to consider alternative means to provide for passengers travelling between Euston and the new station.

Mr. Rowe: I am rather glad about that, because if people from the north-west had to change to get to the international railway station, it would not be a through journey to the continent, which is what was promised.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Can I assure the hon. Gentleman that people from the north-west believe that what we have been offered by British Rail is, at best, second best, totally unacceptable, and a nonsense proposal?

Mr. Rowe: I could not have put it better myself.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point, the hon. Gentleman may find it useful to know that the proposal for building the British Library on the site in question was made in 1975. Apparently British Rail discovered only in the past two or three months, that the site lay between Euston and King's Cross-St. Pancras, which is further proof of its total incompetence and incapacity to do anything sensible about the proposal.

Mr. Rowe: Taking a charitable view, one might think that that was one of the improvements resulting from the appointment of a chairman from the hard world of private enterprise where one has to learn such things early if one is planning a project. If the King's Cross Bill, as it stands, were later regarded as having pre-empted the choice of route for the high speed rail link, it would be utterly disgraceful, and I am only marginally encouraged by the belief that British Rail is taking alternative routes seriously.
Finally, I add my voice to those who are warning London Regional Transport that if it tries to get around protection for historic buildings as it has been doing, and in the teeth of the Select Committee report, I shall gladly go into battle against it with as much zest as I have tried to display against British Rail's proposals to date.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I do not intend to detain the House long. As the whole of the present King's Cross station lies within my constituency,

and the bulk of the work will do severe damage to it, and as the nature park is wholly within my constituency, I feel moved to speak against the revival motion.
Another way to describe the motion would be a carry-on motion, and nothing could more appropriately describe what has been going on. We are back to the farcical film, "Carry on Up the Junction" or, "Carry on Up King's Cross"—unfortunately without the benefit of the immortal Kenneth Williams to add a little class to the whole proceedings.
Once again the House is being treated in a deplorable fashion, as a second-rate legislative slot machine. We have only ourselves to blame if promoters such as British Rail treat us in that way, because we allow ourselves to be so treated.
British Rail and London Underground have reached the stage where they know that they have the money, the time and the influence to put any rubbishy proposals before the House. They put their money in and they get their legislation out. For some years that has been their experience, and that is what is happening now. When they put forward the original Channel Tunnel Bill they sought powers to build the first terminus at Waterloo. At that time —they were stupid, incompetent or liars, or all three—they said that it would be impossible to have a terminal at King's Cross, as it simply would not work. After they got that Bill through, they appeared before the House again and, without mentioning that they had got it wrong before, they said that the perfect solution was to build the terminal at King's Cross. Apparently the traffic does not matter any more, although it was excessive three years earlier and has got worse since. One of the problems is that British Rail and London Underground feel confident that the Government will help to get their legislation through if it relates in any way to the channel tunnel, because that is what experience has shown them.
The Committee appointed by the House to consider the matter met on 51 occasions in public, had five private meetings, inspected the site, took evidence from 60 witnesses and looked at 248 documents put forward by the promoters and others. The Committee was not allowed to consider alternatives to King's Cross. Under the farcical procedure—which the House has accepted until now—for private Bills, every private Bill has to be considered on its merits and on the merits of the proposals put forward. The fact that the proposals are ludicrous and that there would be better ways to deal with the problem is out of order for the Committee. It had to consider a terminal for the channel tunnel rail link before the route had been decided. Nothing could be more farcical than that. We were faced with what might be described as premature legislation. We are being asked to authorise something when we do not have the necessary information upon which to base a sound judgment.
Also, we are faced with what the Committee described as "impropriety". I should explain what British Rail was up to. Allegedly, British Rail is a public servant. It is supposed to be honest, straightforward and decent. However, because the Bill was doing so badly in Committee, because the technical evidence was so full of faults and the people pleading the case before the Committee were so incompetent, British Rail began a secretive, disreputable lobbying process to try to undermine the Committee's work. The Committee said that what was happening
might have been acceptable in ordinary politics


but
was certainly not so in the quasi-judicial context of private bill procedure.
The Committee said that it considered that British Rail's tactics in this regard were
improper, and verged on being a contempt of the House.
I do not think that we should carry a revival motion to help those who are so incompetent that they have to deal contemptuously with the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: Do not mince your words.

Mr. Dobson: I am mincing my words, because if I said what I really thought about some of these people, I should undoubtedly be ruled out of order.
The Committee also said that it had been placed n the situation that it had wished to avoid—taking a decision while lacking significant information If, after 51 public sittings and the scrutiny of 248 documents, the Committee could not come to an informed decision, certainly the Chamber cannot do so.
The Committee was extremely dubious about allowing the Bill to proceed in the absence of what it described as
clear assurances to Parliament on various issues
which—employing a masterly understatement—it said
currently remain uncertain.
Practically everything in the Bill "currently remains uncertain". We know that there is no route between the channel tunnel and the proposed station: we may be about to see the first underground white elephant in the history of the world. We also know that there is as yet no guarantee of any funds to provide the line between the station and the channel tunnel—if the station is to be placed at one end of the line. Moreover, we have discovered tonight that there are apparently no proposals to fund the project. It seems that the House is expected to endorse a proposition for a project that may not receive any funding.
That brings me back to the cogent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about the possibility of private funding. Apparently, the idea is to fund the station by building offices, which will provide 30,000 unwanted office jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) pointed out, those jobs would be better placed in the north-east, where they are needed—or in the north-west, or, indeed, almost anywhere except K.ing's Cross. The last thing that my constituency needs is any more office jobs, let alone 30,000: that is roughly 10 times the number of jobs at the Ford works in Dagenham.
I believe that the company that is supposedly to be one of the joint financiers of the project, Rosehaugh Stanhope, incurred a loss of £168 million in the previous financial year. I hope that it will shortly prove the truth of my motto that the only good property developer is a bankrupt property developer, but, if it does indeed become bankrupt, it will certainly not be able to part-finance the station.
Since the House last discussed the matter, there have been one or two other developments that may undermine the financing of the project. It has recently been discovered —again, British Rail in its far-sightedness had not noticed —that St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners have the right of reversion of a substantial part of the property on which it had intended to indulge in property speculation to raise the funds for the station. That has now gone up the pictures, as they say: Barts and

the Church Commissioners are entitled to recover the property that they sold more than 100 years ago to the Great Northern Railway Company under threat of compulsory purchase. That is another of the issues that —as the Committee so delicately put it—"currently remain uncertain", and a further reason why we should not approve the motion.
It is particularly galling to hear the Bill's sponsor trying to explain away the fact that clause 19—which would have done away with listed-building protection for Victorian buildings in the area—was struck from the Bill by the Select Committee, quite rightly, only for London Underground, one of the Bill's joint promoters, to have the audacity to present another Bill relating to King's Cross containing the self-same clause to cover works that would be proceeding at the same time as the works proposed in this Bill. The promoters are a collection of incompetent crooks who should be stopped in their tracks —and I do not mean railway tracks.
The promoters—British Rail and London Underground—argued that the clause was necessary because of the sheer scale of the demolition that they proposed. The Committee rightly decided that the sheer scale of the demolition was the very reason why protection should be given to listed buildings. The lunacy of the proposition now being advanced again by London Underground lies in the notion that the only time when historic buildings should not be given protection is the time when they need it because someone is carrying out excavations beneath them.
In being asked to approve the Bill, the House is being treated with contempt. Let me remind hon. Members that, as originally drafted—and defended day in, day out, which led to brain damage among Select Committee members —the Bill provided for a concrete underground box to form the station, which was not big enough to contain the trains for which it had been designed. Surely any organisation that is so purblind, stupid and incompetent as to propose the building of a station with platforms too short for the trains that that organisation is having built is not fit to present a private Bill, pull the lever and ask us to deliver its piece of legislation. We should tell the promoters to go back and start all over again if they are determined to build at King's Cross.
There was a time when the House was more robust in its treatment of private Bills—for instance, on only the second Bill promoted by a railway company. In 1825, George Stephenson—now so distinguished that he appears on the new fiver—presented, along with other promoters, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill. His evidence was so bad—so dreadfully incompetent—that it was said that he was shattered, that his credibility as a witness and an engineer had been publicly destroyed and that he knew that he had failed his loyal supporters miserably.
No words could more accurately describe those who appeared before the Committee to promote this Bill. I must commend to the House what our forebears did: they voted the Bill down. They said—even to someone as distinguished as George Stephenson—"This is total incompetence. You cannot justify what you are saying and doing. If you think that you can do the job properly, go away and do it, and then come back and put a proper Bill before the House." That is what Stephenson duly did. If he had been allowed to build the railway that he had


originally proposed, there would never have been a successful railway between Manchester and Liverpool: the project would have failed.
In my view, the best thing that we can do is follow the example of our Victorian forebears and sling the Bill out now. There is no need for it; it has been incompetently drafted and incompetently put to the Committee, and it would be a disgrace if we allowed British Rail to get away with this further bit of legislative slot machining. It would be humiliating for the House to accept this proposition. If British Rail built the station that it has proposed in the Bill, it would not be a Euro-terminal of which we could all be proud; it would turn out to be the most notoriously stinking, gloomy pissoir in Europe. We should do our best to stop that coming about.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me about how a matter that I intend to draw to your attention could best be resolved. You know that there are certain places in the Chamber that we cannot recognise as existing, but not a million miles from you sit experts and civil servants who are able to pass notes to Ministers when they are in difficulty, as they are from time to time. At the other end of the Chamber there is a Gallery in which sit advisers —parliamentary agents and others—who provide similar services for hon. Members. The regulations relating to the Galleries, as they apply to the space under the Gallery, say:
Strangers are not permitted to read books or papers, draw or write, stand in or behind galleries, or carry opera glasses or cameras.
This may be a little bit of theatre, but I do not suppose many people come here carrying opera glasses. As for being unable to write or pass notes, it seems slightly unfair that those of us who do not have the back-up of civil servants are unable to obtain written advice from our advisers. I wonder whether you could advise me on how best that problem could be resolved—somewhere else, perhaps.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a long-established practice. If the hon. Gentleman feels uneasy about it, as he clearly does, may I suggest that he should ask the appropriate Select Committee of the House to look into the matter.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I, too, oppose the revival motion. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the reasons enumerated so far for opposing it. They have been more eloquently stated than I could ever hope to state them, but I wish to emphasise one point: the Bill is premature.
I thought that the Bill was premature when it was first introduced in May 1989. I now believe even more that it is premature. It was deviously drafted to make no mention of the route that is to lead to the buffer stop terminal. The very fact that the terminal is to be there predetermines the route to the terminal. Thus, by skilful draftsmanship provision has been made for the development of the terminal. At the same time, those who are immediately affected by the possible route have been denied the opportunity to make representations against it, or even to appear before the Select Committee that considered the Bill. That demonstrates the inadequacy of our private Bill

procedure and the way in which that procedure can be misused, to the grave disadvantage of those whom the Bill will profoundly affect.
My constituents, particularly those who live in the Warwick gardens area and who are affected by the threat of the line going through the area, are profoundly concerned about the position of the terminal. For that reason, we should reject the revival motion. We ought not to consider it again until we know the alignment of the preferred route.
British Rail has said that it is looking again at all the options. It is reconsidering the strategic advantage of Stratford as the terminal for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is already a junction for the whole of the United Kingdom. If British Rail proceeds with the King's Cross proposals, that will suggest that it has already decided the result of the reassessment. Therefore, it will not be a truly independent, objective or detached view of the so-called other options.

Mr. Waller: May I reassure my hon. Friend that other recently promoted options, including the Ove Arup scheme, assume that there will be a low-level station King's Cross. The rail link is a completely independent issue. Approval of the motion would in no way adversely affect my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Bowden: I wish that I could accept that assurance and the spirit of good will in which it was made, but I am afraid that I cannot do so. I noted that in his speech my hon. Friend said that all the other proposals, except one, include an interchange at King's Cross. That is not strictly true. All the other proposals recognise that there must be a mid-town link. It would be feasible to have a junction at Stratford, with a left turn going westwards from Stratford and stopping at several places—at Fenchurch Street, perhaps, King's Cross, perhaps, and certainly at Paddington. The proposal that we are considering is crazy. Those who come from continental Europe and who wish to go to Wales and the south-west will have to make their own way across London from King's Cross to Paddington to pick up their connections. What sort of channel tunnel rail link is that? It is no better than what already exists. In fact, it is considerably worse. It will result in increased congestion.
Although many of the alternative proposals recognise that King's Cross may be a mid-town stopping place, it is not regarded as a buffer stop terminal. That leads us very much to the view that we are discussing not so much the construction of a rail terminal as a large office development. This is a developer-dominated enterprise. On previous occasions I have asked—I hope that British Rail will deal with it in due course—that we ought to be told more about this office development project. Is the development value of the land affected in any way by the fact that a channel tunnel terminal will be situated beneath the office development?

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has chilled me with the awful thought that, if British Rail plans office development, can we be sure that the desks will be wide enough?

Mr. Bowden: I do not know whether British Rail believes that it will be the prime developer, but its development partners may have come to an understanding with British Rail that if value of the land, as ordinary office


development, is £X, the fact that the channel tunnel rail link terminal will be on the spot will lead to the value of the land being three times £X. A great selling point for office development would be to say, "All you have to do is to go down in the lift, get on a train and you will be in Paris or Brussels within two and a half hours." Any developer who wished to let such an office block would find that a supreme selling proposition. We ought to be told whether that is the prime reason for the Bill or whether its purpose is genuinely to find a way in which to link the whole of the United Kingdom and London with continental Europe.
We need to know what the rail alignment is likely to be before we decide whether to give the go-ahead to the King's Cross development, as provided for in the Bill. British Rail does not deserve to have the Bill passed by means of the private Bill procedure. It has deviously misused that procedure to deny those of us with constituency interests the opportunity to make our voice heard in the Committee. For that reason, I shall oppose it.

Mr. John Prescott: It is a little unfair to blame British Rail for using the private Bill procedure. I presume that the Government did not want to use the Government Bill procedure that they ought to have used. It may have been a hybrid Bill, but that would have been the proper way to introduce such a major Bill to the House. British Rail has used the private Bill procedure for many years. However, the Select Committee pointed out that that is totally unsatisfactory. The Committee was chaired by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). The hon. Gentleman and the other Committee members are to be congratulated on preparing an excellent report. It criticises the way in which British Rail and the promoters have approached the matter.
In some ways, this is a sad day for me. There has been so much criticism of British Rail. I am a defender of public sector industries, but the way in which British Rail has handled the channel tunnel rail link does it no credit. The channel tunnel rail link goes back to earlier times, under a Labour Government. British Rail's lack of knowledge of how much the link would cost finally led to a Labour Government cancelling the channel tunnel development.
I have heard of carry-over motions coming before the House, but we now have a revival motion. As the House is being asked to revive the Bill, the Selection Committee will have to select new Members to sit on it. The hon. Member for Tatton has a new job in the Whips Office, so he may not be available, although I hope that he will be.

Mr. Dixon: No, he will not.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend whispers, "No, he will not." Members who sat on the Committee built up much expertise and knowledge which, if the House agrees to the motion, will be useful.
Labour has made its position clear—we have not supported or voted against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made it clear that we would want to be satisfied about several matters, because the Bill clearly was not simply a British Rail King's Cross matter but applied also to the Underground. At the heart of the project was the development land associated with it. It was hoped that with such finance British Rail would finance and develop the whole project. That stemmed directly from the fact

that the Government were not prepared to find sufficient finance to assist with the development. It had to be funded in that way—hence the need for the land, which became an important part of the financial deal.
We are being asked to consider whether the concerns expressed on Second Reading have been satisfied by the Committee. I have never seen such universal condemnation of private Bill promoters by a private Bill Committee. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the Committee's criticisms. It said that there was considerable doubt about the justification for the Bill and considerable confusion about the real intentions of the promoters. There were growing uncertainties about the viability of the project and its dependence on the land profits, which have now been thrown into doubt by the court case and the claims of the Church Commissioners on lands which were an essential part of the project. I do not know whether that has been settled, but the first step towards establishing a case for the Church has been taken and accepted.
Probably the most alarming of the Committee's conclusions was that it threw considerable doubt on the promoter's credibility. Credibility has been at the heart of the argument since the beginning of the debate—whether one could believe what the promoters were saying on behalf of British Rail, the credibility of the information provided to the Committee and the credibility of continuing with the evidence given to the Committee, which was clearly shown to be false. To that extent, no greater condemnation could be made of the promoters of this important Bill. The Committee said that the promoters seriously delayed proceedings by persisting with evidence which proved to be false, and that about half the petitioners were unable to present their arguments due to the hostility of British Rail. There was a lack of candidness in providing essential road traffic statistical information, on which the Department was at variance with British Rail. That was known to both parties, but the Committee said that it was informed on the last day and was therefore unable to make a judgment on the essential matter of traffic statistics and whether buses or taxis would provide a better service. That basic information was not available to the Committee.
Paragraph 20 of the Committee's report said:
We consider that British Rail's tactics in this regard were improper, and verged on being a contempt of the House. This is particularly inexcusable in the light of the fact that British Rail are a very experienced promoter of private Bills. We very much hope that future promoters of private bills will not be tempted to act in a similar manner.
The judgment and recommendation of the Committee in its report was that British Rail's behaviour bordered on contempt of the Committee.
The Committee found—the House has now reached the same judgment—that the system of dealing with private Bills for the development of King's Cross was inadequate and deeply flawed. The House has agreed to a new system to deal with such matters, but it is interesting to note the Committee's conclusion that the procedure was not satisfactory.
The Committee recommends that we proceed with the Bill, despite the lack of substantial bits of information. There is continuing uncertainty about the tunnel link and the funding of the project—two essential requirements of the Bill. I was staggered to hear the Minister say, "We do not have a project on our desks as yet". I know that he is telling the truth as I do not doubt him for a second, but it is staggering that the Government are allowing bodies to


come forward with Bills on a major strategic transport decision—probably the most important transport decision this century—while the Department is saying that it still has not received the proposals. That may be true, but is it not time for the Department to get off its backside, find out what is going on, and say, "We may have a view about what is important to the development of the channel link."? People in Europe cannot understand that. They are staggered that the Government can stand aside in that way. In Committee, the promoters argued that money would be available with the EuroRail consortium, but then in June the Secretary of State told the House, "I am sorry, but we do not have sufficient money for the project." It does not stand up.
Finding the finance for the essential link could not be agreed on the conditions that the Government had laid down. I welcome the fact that the Government may now be prepared to find the public money. We said that we would support them in that, if necessary by repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
We are hearing conflicting statements from Ministers compared with the ones that we heard a few years ago, but I should like to hear the Minister say that the money will be provided. I believe that the Secretary of State made a similar statement in the newspaper, Scotland on Sunday. He gives his major statements to Scottish papers. We shall wait and see what we get in England. He has said that public money will be available. Will the Minister make clear what he means by that? Normally when the Government have said that public money will be made available they meant loans—the privilege of borrowing at a higher rate from the Government, and to be financed by passengers. Does he mean grants when he talks about public money? Will the difference between revenue and cost be made up by direct funding in the way that we understand public funding on such projects? I hope that the Minister will come clean about that and give us more information about the funding of the project.
The Committee faced a difficult decision in recommending to the House that the Bill should continue. The balance of the argument which persuaded the Committee, although there was some dispute about it, was that it would not be fair for the promoters to be faced with tremendous costs while the Committee imposed further delay. Given the recommendations that it received, it had no choice. Nevertheless, it means that the House must now decide whether to pass the revival motion. I understand the comments by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about operational factors, about the role of King's Cross, about whether the route should go through the south or north of Kent and whether it should be the Thames alternative link international system, the Ove Arup route or British Rail's preferred route.
An essential part will be played by King's Cross, but I do not see a conflict between King's Cross and Stratford, especially as the Government have suggested a surface cross-rail possibility. Such strategic thinking may link those aspects. Only one body can do that—the Government. That is their job. We need strategic thinking on transport issues. The Committee said that northern interests were being led to believe that they would not get the King's Cross development. They therefore had to use pressure groups such as the Confederation of British

Industry and the Trades Union Congress to lobby Members of Parliament. There was to be a north-south battle. That was not necessary. The Committee made it clear that information was being given out. The promoters at the Committee were excused from giving out such information, but the promoters outside the Committee tried to exploit the differences between the north and the south, as though Stratford and King's Cross were alternatives. There is no reason why Stratford and King's Cross should not complement each other. I believe that the Ove Arup connection via north Kent is a far better proposal. It provides eurogauge, eurospeed and a dedicated track and gives British Rail the possibility of developing. A route through the south of London would be crazy, because it is the most expensive and environmentally damaging proposition, although that route may be preferable to British Rail and the promoters.
Will the Minister give us a guarantee about Ashford station? We have already been told that it will not be a new international station, as we were promised that King's Cross would be. It will be readjusted and a line away from the middle of the station will be used. Building costs and commercial requirements mean that costs are likely to exceed an 8 per cent. rate of return. British Rail may say that it wants Ashford station, but the Treasury will not permit that development because it does not meet the 8 per cent. requirement. Development of Ashford station is therefore clearly in doubt.
The Secretary of State told us about the guaranteeing of the route to the north downs, but British Rail seems to want the route to go through south Kent. As Kent county council will find, it will go through the most populous part of Kent, disgorging all its traffic into the Swanley area, next to the M25 and the bridge which is also being built by Trafalgar House. The biggest car park will be in Hythe, and probably around Brands Hatch. Major environmental damage will be caused to the south Kent area.
The south has an interest in the proposal. People from the area believe that the south Kent proposal will be damaging to them. Unless the Government provide public money, Ashford station will not be developed. The north will not get trains travelling directly through the area until three years after development because British Rail is ready to put most of its traffic into King's Cross so that it can feed its InterCity system, ready for privatisation. That is why the north will not get through routes, despite the promises.
Only one purpose-built freight terminal, Port Wakefield, will be ready by the time the tunnel opens. The north is constantly kidded about the facilities that will be available, the south will suffer major damage and London will be torn apart. All parts of the United Kingdom will be disadvantaged.
When the Minister went to Stratford, he said that the Government were looking into all options. If the Minister says that, I believe it, but can he assure us that evidence to the inquiries reviewing the TALIS, Ove Arup and British Rail routes will be made available for others to make an assessment? All too often, when British Rail has carried out assessments and reviews, it has said, "This is our judgment and we will not give you the information on which it is based." We do not trust British Rail's statements, and that is a tragedy. We are not confident about its attitude to this major strategic decision. The Government are responsible.
There have been considerable changes since the report was published. The cross-rail commitment by the Government, which we welcome, marks an important change in the strategic thinking on these matters. I hope that there will be a new dedicated track and a route through the north of Kent, although I shall listen to all the arguments. If the north is to meet the strategic requirements of fast through trains, freight and a connection with King's Cross, there is no reason why one strategic route, as advocated by Ove Arup, would not meet several of those obligations.
I appeal to the Minister not to stand aside in this matter —it is far too critical. The Labour Front Bench has not yet voted on this matter. I shall not vote against the revival motion, although I am far from convinced that British Rail's proposal is worthy of support because of the operational matters associated with King's Cross. If the Bill's promoters do not satisfy us on the route and financing before Report stage, we shall consider whether as an Opposition we should support or reject the Bill. I hope that the promoters and British Rail are listening. Apparently the new Secretary of State now recognises that there is a role for planning and development. I hope that, in that new spirit, the Government will reach a firm decision to provide a good strategic link to Europe, because that is what the Bill is about—it is a public issue, not a private issue, and it requires action by the Government.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): On the face of it, this is a procedural motion; as such, it has the Government's support. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) appeared to be lending support to the passage of the motion, which would allow the Bill to continue to be considered. If so, I agree with him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) so ably explained, strictly speaking, the question before us is whether the House should continue to consider the granting of planning permission for the measures in the King's Cross Railways Bill. To that question, the Government's reply is an unreserved yes.
I understand why several of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members wish to kill the Bill at this stage. They do not agree with the concept of an international passenger terminal at King's Cross, notwithstanding the advantages that will accrue to commuter services to London from the north and from Kent.
Let me remind the House of two matters concerning the proposals for the redevelopment of King's Cross. First, no investment proposal has been put to the Department of Transport and no approval has therefore yet been given. The matter is enormously complicated, but there are precedents for the seeking of planning permission for major railway projects before investment approval is given. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will be aware that his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench have given a warm welcome to a recently deposited Bill which would extend the docklands light railway to Lewisham and Greenwich. No investment approval has been sought in respect of that Bill and such approval is not appropriate because it is a project for private finance. In respect of several light rail schemes, the permission of the House has been sought long before investment approval

has been granted. It is by no means a break with precedent for the House to consider the granting of planning permission before investment approval has been given.
Secondly—and perhaps more important—I can assure the House that the Bill does not prejudge the line of route of any high-speed rail link from Folkestone to London. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that the Stratford option is not inconsistent with the Bill. A railway line for passengers coming into central London could pass through Stratford—indeed, two of the options on the table envisage such a possibility and one of them at least specifically envisages passengers being carried on to King's Cross. The question of where freight should move north of Stratford is a separate matter, but the Bill does not prejudice British Rail's review of the appropriate route from Folkestone to King's Cross.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me specifically about Ashford. I repeat the assurance, which I have given in public, that the Government remain committed to an international passenger station at Ashford, and such a project is not inconsistent with any of the three major options that British Rail is considering. All the routes would pass through Ashford; their paths would diverge thereafter.

Mr. Rowe: I think that eventually all three options will make that transition, but a number of us are worried that we should have no clear idea about the financing of the schemes. The House will have spent hours and hours on the Bill and there is a danger that, as a result of all that investment of time and effort, we shall feel bound to accept the financial package, however inadequate or unsatisfactory it may be. We could end up with a project that is inferior to one of the other schemes simply because we have been ground down into accepting it, even if the financial package proves inferior to another in the end.

Mr. Freeman: I must make the obvious point that any high-speed rail link from Folkestone, whether or not it passes through Stratford, would require planning permission and, given the present rules, would require the approval of the House. The Government are still considering representations in response to our consultation paper about reforming the planning procedure for rail and port schemes, but the present rules require any such proposal for a link to come before the House. The House can therefore express a clear opinion about the line in principle or its specific route.
British Rail has promoted the Bill because it is a complicated set of proposals involving commuter services, international services and the underground service. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, the revival motion refers to the Bill's provisions for part of the necessary work for the underground, in particular the expansion of the ticketing hall, and not to works required by the Fennell report, which are urgent. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he would support the Fennell works if such proposals appeared in a Bill that could be considered more quickly.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister is under a slight misapprehension. The King's Cross Railways Bill originally contained two sets of underground work. One set related to the Fennell requirements for safety and the other related to the provision of interchange facilities below ground specifically in connection with the


construction of the new international British Rail station. The first set of works has been lifted from the Bill and is being proposed in separate legislation. The other works, which relate specifically to BR's proposals, are still contained in the present Bill.

Mr. Freeman: I understand that perfectly and I apologise if I did not make myself clear. The work connected with the proposed new international station includes improvement to the ticketing hall and facilities. I understand the hon. Gentleman's position.

Mr. Dobson: Before the Minister leaves the matter of financing the project, does he accept the statement in the report from the Select Committee to the effect that the failure of the promoters to convince the House
that they could afford to complete their proposed works has on several previous occasions been regarded as grounds for finding the Preamble of a Bill not proved
which led to the Bill being thrown out? Does he also accept the Select Committee's view that the Bill should not be enacted
in the absence of clear assurances to Parliament on the various issues which currently remain uncertain"?
Further uncertainties have been introduced tonight. When will the House receive the assurances for which the Select Committee called?

Mr. Freeman: I am mindful of the fact that I represent the Government, not the Bill's sponsor. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will have heard the hon. Gentleman. As other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I shall deal briefly with some of the issues that have been raised for which the Government have specific responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred to the need for British Rail to continue to update traffic forecasts. I assure her that its section 40 plans will be updated by British Rail periodically and that it will certainly take into account improved and changed forecasts for passengers and freight.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to trains north of London and that is clearly relevant to the Bill. We are dealing with seven trains to provide the service north of London. The issue is complicated. Although the contract has not been let, that is not for the want of resources. We are dealing with an international consortium that is designing and building the trains. The companies involved in the United Kingdom have no direct control over their international partners in the consortium and specifically over the Belgians who have been involved in building the body shell for the inter-capital trains. Therefore, the Department of Transport, British Rail and the United Kingdom parties are, to some extent, at their mercy. I hope that the international consortium will soon be able to put an attractive proposition and be able to sign a contract.
Another aspect involves the technical problems of running trains north of London. They have to split and that involves some technology, because passengers must be able to move the entire length of the train under the tunnel—that is a safety requirement. Therefore, they must pass through the portion of the train that will split at appropriate stations north of London. Also, one must make sure that signalling on British Rail is not affected by

the new technology on a train. That is by no means certain at the moment. British Rail will seek to make as rapid progress as possible. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laughs, but we are dealing with a third rail south of London and overhead electric power north of London.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the timetable for establishing a new route between Folkestone and London. That matter is directly relevant to the revival motion. I confirm that British Rail hopes by the spring to reach a conclusion on the route from Folkestone into London. W. S. Atkins has been appointed to review the procedure by which a decision is reached. It will then be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to decide on any propositions put to him by British Rail and when to make an announcement to the House. The only firm part of the timetable about which I can tell the House is that for concluding the work on reviewing options.
The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Kingston upon Hull, East asked about the financing of any high-speed rail link—a perfectly appropriate and relevant point in relation to the revival motion. There is no change in the Government's policy on financing. We have said that the Government will not seek to amend section 42, which prevents subsidy to any high-speed line for international passenger traffic. We have not ruled out the financing of the investment by British Rail in the conventional way, similar, for example, to the electrification of the east coast main line when British Rail financed the investment—in this case it would clearly be on a substantial scale—by means of Government loans from the national loans fund, from public service obligation grant, which is paid to British Rail, and from its own internal resources, including the sale of assets.
In the case of such a major project as this, Government loan financing would have to play a significant role. We have not ruled out that option; nor have we ruled out a capital contribution on behalf of Network SouthEast for any improvement in services for commuters in south-east England.

Mr. Prescott: Nothing has changed.

Mr. Freeman: Nothing has changed—that is right. I hope that my clarification has cleared up some hon. Members' confusion about subsidy and financing.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East specifically asked me about through trains from King's Cross. Of course, through trains will be able to run to King's Cross—that is one of the main purposes of the Bill —including, for example, through trains down the east coast main line and the west coast main line.

Mr. Dobson: How many?

Mr. Freeman: That depends on the volume of traffic whenever a high-speed rail link is constructed. Of course, if under the Bill the King's Cross terminal is built in advance of any high-speed rail link which, by then, would obviously be coming, trains would be able to run straight through King's Cross, through the Thameslink tunnel to the Southern region, instead of going around the west of London.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury selectively quoted from the Select Committee's report. However, he did not quote paragraph 38 of that report.
The Committee concluded that it approved the principle of the Bill. By definition, the Select Committee recommended further consideration of the Bill and the Government therefore support the revival motion. I note that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also supports it.

Mr. Prescott: So that the record is clear, I said that I would not vote against the revival motion, but I still need to be satisfied. That information is not yet before the House, as the Committee made clear.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall support the motion, but not because I am impressed by the Minister's argument, not because I am happy and satisfied by British Rail and not because I am in favour of the preposterous procedures that affect the issue. However, if passed, the motion will allow us to maintain the arguments for investment and sensible railway decisions that will serve the interests and concerns of my own area, which are now urgent and serious.
I shall certainly not commend British Rail. It has had a difficult time in recent years because its masters have been foolish, dogmatic and unreasonable. British Rail does not deserve our sympathy. I recall expressing deep regret a few years ago because, although British Rail had used red station seats on all its platforms on the north-eastern line, it had felt it appropriate to use a blue seat at Grantham. When I raised the matter in the House at Question Time and asked why on earth a blue seal had been used at Grantham, the then Minister said that his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—the then Prime Minister—had told him that she had enjoyed her journey on the train. That was probably the only train journey that she ever made.

Mr. Prescott: The seat is yellow at Huntingdon.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is extremely observant, but that seat will probably change colour—at the same speed as the new methods of signalling to which he referred a moment ago.
However, my concern is related not only to my constituency where economic need is now vital and where we are bemused by the delay and incompetence that have surrounded the matter. I am also concerned to reflect the position in Europe. Until recently I acted as chairman of the Council of Europe Environment Committee, which takes an interest in transport. I have watched with great interest the speed at which French decisions and French investment have proceeded. The other day I flew from Paris to the City of London airport at fairly low altitude. The weather was reasonably good and one could actually see the evidence of the competence and investment in France, where the channel tunnel is already seen as something to be achieved and where it has already been the focus of investment and, years ago, was the subject of decision making——

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Hardy: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I am sure that he will like my next point.
The state of affairs in Britain will be so appallingly unreasonable that I suspect that the first French passengers to reach the United Kingdom when the trains start running under the tunnel will feel impelled to report the United Kingdom to either the European convention

against torture or the Court of Human Rights. Those passengers will take the view that it is unreasonable of Britain to see passengers travelling cheaply and comfortably on French trains, which run on smooth and permanent tracks, while our foreign visitors have to suffer the experiences that the constituents of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and those of some of his hon. Friends have had to tolerate during the lifetime of this Government. The position is clearly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is an observant Member of the House—even at 15,000 ft when flying across France. However, I must pick him up on one point. He described the airport to which he flew as the "City of London airport". It might only be a name, but it is actually called City airport. Although many people in the London borough of Newham, where City airport is located, bitterly oppose the airport, it gets right up our noses that we are not allowed to call it "Newham international airport". As I said, it is called City airport, not City of London airport. My hon. Friend should get it right.

Mr. Hardy: I apologise to my hon. Friend and to his constituents for my error. My hon. Friend knows that I have some regard for that airport, perhaps because using it means that I am not dependent on London Underground, which costs a fantastic amount of money and is not always terribly pleasant, but can travel to his area on the Riverbus instead, which is the most historic and perhaps the most pleasant form of transport in London. The airport has many advantages, including the fact that aeroplanes fly at a sufficiently low altitude so that one can watch the physical progress being made in France, where there is an entirely different approach. Perhaps because the French Government have not been so dogmatic as the British Government in the past decade, they have ensured that the Pas de Calais, the most impoverished region of France, will receive all the advantages that the improved communication will provide.
It seems years since the House debated the channel tunnel. Some of us made the point then that in France the region where the tunnel terminal is located is the most impoverished while the tunnel reaches the wealthiest region of Britain. We said then—and, as a Yorkshire Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is well aware of the arguments —that if the tunnel was to serve the national interest, early and intelligent decisions would have to be made to ensure that the industrial areas of the north of England were properly served. Yet we have suffered years of appalling and stupid parliamentary procedures, which may have been relevant at the time when a Foreign Secretary was run over by a train early in the 19th century—[HON MEMBERS: "The President of the Board of Trade."] Yes, it was the President of the Board of Trade. One could think of several Ministers who might benefit from a similar experience.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, following the unfortunate demise of that gentleman, the train was claimed as a deodand, which, of course, is now out of date?

Mr. Hardy: I am sure that the House is greatly obliged to the hon. Lady for that information.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Perhaps the hon. Lady was present.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is being rather ungallant. The hon. Lady may be foolish enough to support the nonsense and incompetence that the Government have demonstrated over the past decade. The whole sorry saga of the tunnel is an illustration of the sad decline of our country caused by the dogma and incompetence of a Government who would rather see service of private interest to the sacrifice of public good than create any opportunity for Britain to secure the national advance that we need.
The ability of the French to provide an adequate, efficient and inexpensive train service should have been obvious to us a long time ago. In case Conservative Members, including perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) who has had much connection with Europe, need an illustration, I recently made two train journeys in France. One was between Paris and Strasbourg and the other was between Paris and Brest. I compared them with my journey from King's Cross to my home in Yorkshire the other night. I arrived at King's Cross station to catch the 11.15 pm train only to find that it was not running. I arrived home at 5 am, having caught one train from King's Cross to Stevenage, one bus from Stevenage to Hitchin, one train from Hitchin to Peterborough and, after an hour on Peterborough platform, another train from Peterborough to Doncaster.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Hardy: The journey was long enough without adding the hon. Lady's observations to it, but I give way to her.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problems that he has just outlined are an excellent reason for denationalising British Rail?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We seem to be moving some way from the revival motion.

Mr. Hardy: I regret giving way to the hon. Lady because I did not want that argument to be made. The French political system is very different from ours, but so are its railways.
On the journeys that I have made in France, the trains have been both on time—as they invariably are—and on permanent way, which is smooth. I have paid fares for more comfortable rolling stock which were little more than two thirds the level of the fares in Britain. Yet after 11 years of this Government we have an unsatisfactory train system, which does not compare with that of our competitors, and areas such as mine, which are in appalling environmental and economic need, cannot look forward to the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will be aware, only the other day we had a televised announcement that a terminal was to be built in Yorkshire. I regret, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does not, that the site of the terminal is on the west Yorkshire rather than the south Yorkshire side, which I should have preferred. However, at least it will be in Yorkshire. My hon. Friend will share my confidence that we shall have the Yorkshire terminal

ready, operating and efficient before there is anything to link it to in London or Kent. We should be paying serious attention to those matters.

Mr. Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge immediately that British Rail is short of funds because the Government have deliberately starved it of moneys. They have even counted investment that has been generated by British Rail as investment authorised by the Government as if it were some form of largesse. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the ordinary work people of British Rail use their best endeavours to provide a decent service in spite of those difficulties and in spite of a sometimes indifferent management and a Government who are completely hostile to the railways?

Mr. Hardy: Yes, I acknowledge that. I would——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will link his remarks to the revival motion that is before the House in responding to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend was leading me to the final part of my brief remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the other reason why I shall support the Bill. It has been made clear that the senior management of British Rail has deserved all the criticism that has been offered. At the same time, we need to send a message to those who work for British Rail that we understand and appreciate that they have had to put up with an enormous amount during the past 11 years. They have had to put up with the permanent criticism of a group of people in the Government who wanted them to fail. They have had to put up with grossly inadequate investment and an obligation to work with a level of return on that investment that our neighbours in France and Germany regard as ridiculous.
By supporting the motion, preposterous though it may be, we shall be giving a message to the employees of British Rail that we believe that British Rail is important, that the railway industry is vital and that we deplore the incompetence with which it has been managed at senior level and guided by the Government.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I share my hon. Friend's view that we need good links between the channel tunnel, the midlands, the north, Scotland and Wales. It was for that reason that we proposed a direction that would have required British Rail to guarantee that with this project there would be a fast, frequent and reliable service to the midlands, the north and Scotland. British Rail had so little faith in that proposition that it refused to accept the direction.
I urge my hon. Friend to consider carefully the prospects of getting a fast, frequent and reliable service to Yorkshire through an underground station that will have only one track in from the south and one track out from the south. The station will purport to serve eight platforms, when the current King's Cross station is limited on Fridays because it cannot get enough trains out and there is not enough space. If we add to the congestion, there is every danger that the service to Yorkshire will be reduced.

Mr. Hardy: I should hate to see the current service to Yorkshire reduced any further. I accept, however, that there is a risk. We need to maintain our argument, and that is why I shall support the Bill.
I have another reason for supporting the Bill. I have enjoyed some of the speeches that I have heard tonight; we have had the opportunity to hear my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). We shall hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who will be talking from a different viewpoint. We have suffered enormous delay and incompetence. The arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends have much merit. I shall support the motion to try to ensure that no one may accuse south Yorkshire Members of not seeking sensible decisions that should have been taken a long time ago.

Mr. A. J. Beith: If I had not intended to oppose the revival motion, I have now heard sufficient to cause me to do so.
The Minister kindly sought to address some of the anxieties that have been expressed about the broken promises of British Rail. However, he was unable to do so except by recourse to arguments that produced laughter on the Opposition Benches. The very idea that the technology employed by British Rail is, for example, incapable of coping with splitting a train through the length of which it was possible to walk prior to its being split is laughable. Southern region runs such trains through most of its main line stations every day of the week and has done so for decades. The arguments to which the Minister has had to turn have been supplied to him by British Rail and they do not stand up.
I have an overall anxiety about the Government's longstanding hands-off attitude to the rail link. The idea of having to revive this Bill in the absence of the sort of positive lead provided in France is depressing. The French were determined that their industry and passengers should take full advantage of the tunnel. Therefore, their Government took the lead to ensure that a dedicated link was available. Our Government, however, have come to this debate to give lukewarm support to a revival motion for a Bill which does not provide such a dedicated link facility.
I have sufficient reason on the Government's attitude alone not to support the motion, but one should also take into account the attitude of the promoters, British Rail, whose record is so strewn with broken promises in connection with King's Cross and railway lines out of that station that it is impossible for my hon. Friends and me to support the motion.
We have also been told that the recently announced delay in providing through services from the north to the continent is due not to the failure of the Bill to make rapid progress, but to international arrangements for building trains. It is alleged that the Belgians are holding us to ransom. We are also told that British Rail is unable to provide the necessary technology to split trains that must go to more than one destination in the north of England. Such arguments do not stand up and they belong to a series of broken promises.
During the passage of the Bill, British Rail has obtained the support of a number of hon. Members who represent

the north of England. During earlier stages of the Bill, I, too, supported British Rail, in common with other colleagues, because British Rail argued that services would be provided from the beginning to ensure that the north was not put at a competitive disadvantage with the south-east. That is what this is all about. None of us would want the channel tunnel unless it was directly linked with transport routes to the north of England; otherwise the sole effect would be to provide a competitive advantage for industry and commerce in the south-east, which would increase the relative disadvantage of the north.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend's view is shared by those of us who represent the south-east. We are aware that we are over-congested and that the planning bias has led to more people and more development in a part of the country where, to be honest, we need less development. Such linked transport routes are entirely compatible with providing proper regional strategic economic planning, not just general transport planning.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that this is not a north-south battle. There is a shared interest between the northern region and the congested parts of the south-east to ensure that communications are linked directly to the areas that can most readily accommodate industrial and commercial expansion. British Rail has broken its promise on that important point.
The delay on the provision of through services has not been occasioned by the proceedings on the Bill; nor will it be shortened if we pass the motion. A positive decision on the motion would not remove the various technical difficulties that British Rail finds so insuperable when it comes to providing direct trains.
Within living memory we have managed to have direct trains running out of London on ships to and through France to Paris and Brussels. British Rail could not even keep those trains going. Some of us remember travelling on the night ferry train to the continent. The very idea that, with a tunnel at its disposal, British Rail cannot run through trains from the north to the continental centres of Europe seems ludicrous. That is one fundamental broken promise.
The second promise to be broken was made in the same context as the Bill, but was spelt out in detail in the British Railways (No. 2) Bill in a previous Session and also relates to King's Cross. It was the promise that sleeper services and overnight services to Teesside, Tyneside, Northumberland and the Borders would be resumed when electrification had been carried out, if a survey to be conducted by British Rail in conjunction with the local authorities could not demonstrate conclusive reasons for not doing so.
We now find that British Rail does not intend to carry out that undertaking which was given to the House. That casts doubt on the undertakings British Rail has given in relation to the motion. The excuses given by British Rail when it withdrew overnight services to King's Cross were various. I shall leave out some of the more absurd ones and relate two on which BR concentrated.
First, British Rail said that it had a shortage of class 47 locomotives and so could not manage the diesel traction required, but that electrification would solve that problem. Secondly, it said that platforms at King's Cross were too short to accommodate full-length sleeper trains and that


that problem would be overcome when the King's Cross Railways Bill had been passed and the works associated with it were completed. Now we discover that those two excuses are no longer the reasons why British Rail is not prepared to reintroduce overnight services.
British Rail's latest reason is that it is no longer acceptable to stop sleeper services en route because it wakes up some passengers. In addition, it says that it is no longer acceptable to drop from or add coaches to sleeper trains in the course of the route. We have just been discussing British Rail's own plans to split continental trains, which British Rail is taking a little time to work out, so that argument does not stand up very well. In any case, both those practices are currently in use in order to provide sleeper services to Carlisle, Bournemouth and Poole, to which I suspect the rolling stock was taken when British Rail withdrew the services from the east coast main line. That is another broken British Rail promise that relates directly to King's Cross and the King's Cross Railways Bill.
As a result of those experiences, I have no faith in any assurances given by British Rail relating to the Bill or the motion. For that reason, I shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am truly delighted to see you, Mr. Speaker, back in the Chair as we move towards the end of the consideration of the procedural motion. I am delighted because there is much discontent——

Mr. Cryer: Stop grovelling and get on with it.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend seems to think that I am grovelling, but I have always thought that a little judicious crawling never does any harm, so I shall persist in my present style.
We are discussing a procedural matter and you, Mr. Speaker, will know—and thus be able to use your good offices to impress on the Government—that it is about time that we got away from the lunacy of the private Bill procedure. I sat as a member of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure—a joint House of Commons and House of Lords Committee. We reported in July 1988 and made about 52 recommendations to avoid Parliament facing problems such as those before us now. We have had the Government's response to our recommendations and I am delighted to say that they have accepted most of them. To get round the problems of private Bill procedure, we need primary legislation initiated by the Government.
In business questions last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House whether, despite there being nothing in the Queen's Speech relating to the subject, we would have the opportunity to consider legislation from the Government to implement the Joint Committee's recommendations, as we seemed to have plenty of time on our hands. The Leader of the House said that, unfortunately, he did not think there would be an opportunity to do that, and I believe that there will probably be a general election before British Rail gets its act together and makes a decision on the fast rail link. Be that as it may, however, we need to pressure the Government into bringing forward legislation which will avoid the necessity to debate arcane matters of the kind that have come before the House today.
I missed only a few minutes of the debate, at around 7 o'clock when I left the Chamber to give an interview in my role as Mr. Angry of east London for my regular Monday night slot on LBC. I was asked what a revival motion was, as it sounded like something akin to spiritualism. I said that it probably was, in a way, as the House was trying to revive something which in my opinion should have been long dead and buried—the proposal to locate the second London channel rail link station at King's Cross.
Those of us who sat on the relevant Committee and who studied the Select Committee report believe that this is not the way to take that decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made the same telling point raised by other hon. Members, though not of his stature and seniority in our party—that this is not the way for a major strategic decision to be taken. As my hon. Friend emphasised, this is probably the single most important transport decision of this century, and perhaps for decades to come. My hon. Friend contrasted the approach taken by the French to our own piecemeal, shoddy, hit-and-miss approach. It is not acceptable for Britain in the 1990s to take such an important decision in that way, using a private Bill procedure which dates back to the 19th century and requires anyone laying any track, be it British Rail or an urban transport system, to seek Parliament's approval. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made it clear that the Government should take a strategic overview. It is absurd for them to walk away from their responsibilities, and for Ministers to sit with their hands under their bottoms saying, "This is not for us to decide —let British Rail get itself out of the mess that it has clearly got itself into."
Among the many hats that I wear in this place—as you, Mr. Speaker, kindly pointed out the other day, in calling me last during Question Time—is that of chair of the London group of Labour Members of Parliament, whose members have a close interest in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Transport before last—they change so rapidly that it is difficult to remember them, but I believe that it was the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon)—came to a meeting of that group of London Members, and when asked who was responsible for the strategic overview in respect of King's Cross, the fast link, and the location of the second station, replied, "Not me —I am not the strategic authority for transport in London and the south-east." So we put the same question to British Rail, who replied, "Not us—we are a transport undertaking; it is our considered belief that people will want to travel into King's Cross, and that we shall make the most money from that location, which is what we are required to do as a transport undertaking, but we are not the strategic transport authority for London".
There seems to be an enormous vacuum. Every sensible right hon. and hon. Member—there are still a couple left on the Government Benches—knows that such a decision should not be subject to the procedural approach that has been adopted, nor should it be left to British Rail and developers to decide the matter. It is outrageous that the Government have walked away from contributing to such a major decision. I hope that those points will be taken on board by the Minister, and that he will speak urgently to his Cabinet colleagues so as to ensure that we do not need to resort to revival motions in the future. The matter has been dragging on for so long and we all know that this is not the way to deal with it.
The Minister said that the Government had not imposed a Whip tonight—we shall test that shortly, but I already detect a certain buzz in the Chamber and I know that it has nothing to do with my speech. Everyone is expecting a Division at 10 o'clock, and will be hurrying back from places of excitement to be here to vote. It is scandalous that the Government are hiding behind British Rail and letting it make a decision on a matter which is important not only to London but to the south-east and to the whole country for decades to come.
Also, it is scandalous that British Rail should be using the private Bill procedure, which has effectively been brought into disrepute by the way the Government have maltreated it. All the private Bills passed recently have been highly controversial, affecting broad areas of the country and a number of political interests. The Government have their payroll vote standing by—Members who have not been here to listen to the arguments, but who come through in droves at 10 o'clock to do the Government's bidding.
I oppose the revival motion on all the grounds that I have mentioned so far, and on others which I am about to mention. The Minister says that British Rail has stated that it is on target to make an announcement by next Easter about a route for the link. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it seems crazy that we are deciding about the location of a station when we have not yet decided the route of the rail line.

Mr. Freeman: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I said that British Rail would reach a conclusion about the preferred route by next spring.

Mr. Banks: That does not seem markedly different from what I said. I assume that the announcement will give their conclusions.

Mr. Cryer: Perhaps they are not going to tell us.

Mr. Banks: I am sure that they will—if nothing else has come out of this long, involved and Byzantine procedure, British Rail has reluctantly accepted that it cannot play fast and loose with the House as it has done so far. British Rail is fortunate in having a Government who are sheltering behind it and who will undoubtedly be backing it tonight, but no one in the House will be satisfied with the way in which this has been done, or the way the House has been treated by British Rail.

Mr. Chris Smith: I hope that when British Rail reaches its conclusions on the location of the route for the high-speed link it will give the matter rather more serious consideration at its board meeting than it did when it opted for King's Cross—a decision which was taken by British Rail's board in 40 minutes of discussions.

Mr. Banks: Yes, fast decisions are repented at great length. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said in answer to an intervention, how can the House be expected to treat seriously the calculations that British Rail puts before us? There was to be only one station for London—Waterloo —when the first Channel Tunnel Bill was tabled, but the calculations for potential use of the tunnel were so 13adly wrong that British Rail has had to go for a second site. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out, British Rail specifically ruled out King's Cross when it proposed Waterloo. Yet now it has

suddenly become British Rail's conch shell, which British Rail intends to stand by as a test of its virility and will not consider any other option seriously. That does not make any sense, and it does not leave us with any confidence in British Rail's calculations.
I visited one of the Minister's predecessors at Christmas last year. He gave me a glass of sherry, which was much appreciated at the time as it was much needed. He now has responsibility for the poll tax. I said to that young Minister, "Sir, you should make sure that British Rail give you good advice." I told him that I had the feeling that, judging by the way it was going about the matter, it would give him a "bummer". I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary expression, but I used it then and I told him, "And you are going to be stuck with it". That is exactly what British Rail has done. I warned the Minister that he should not accept what British Rail was doing at face value. I said, "Minister, you must intervene." He said, "Now is not the time to intervene." That is how the Government have played this all the way through.
I know that discussions have gone on behind the scenes. I do not know exactly what has been said, but I cannot believe that the Government have completely walked away from the matter. I cannot believe that they have no interest in what British Rail does, or that they cannot see what everyone else can see, including Conservative Members —that these are matters of national significance, and that the decisions cannot be left to British Rail and a bunch of developers who view King's Cross less as a station than as a major office development.

Mr. Cryer: Is not one of the unsatisfactory aspects of the way in which decisions have been blundered into the fact that British Rail cannot be trusted with such decisions? It has given the northern cities no guarantees of through journeys and through running, and it seems that investment in King's Cross could well be pursued at the expense of much-needed investment in provincial railway lines serving cities such as Bradford, Leeds arid Huddersfield.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such are the pitfalls that we encounter when decisions are made on a one-off basis. A whole range of London developments is being proposed, but there is no coherence. If the Government can get a bit of money from a developer, they will go along with that developer's proposals.
One of the reasons why Stratford would be a far better location for the tunnel from my point of view—and from the point of view of all the London boroughs, both Tory and Labour—is the number of developments in progress which will involve Stratford, such as the east-west cross-rail and the Jubilee line extension. I do not oppose the latter, as it will bring more transport investment into my part of the east end, which will aid its economic regeneration, but we all know that the Government opted for it not because the Jubilee line was the most important in relation to London's commuter needs but because the developers of Canary Wharf put up some money. That is how decisions are made—not only is there no strategic overview, but there is no interlinking.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that if British Rail had not specifically rejected the resolution proposed by the House in relation to the guaranteeing of through services, the basis for discussions about this development would have been entirely different? The northern


provincial areas would have been far more sympathetic and encouraging. Having rejected that condition, British Rail has been breaking similar promises ever since.

Mr. Banks: That is absolutely true. Earlier, my hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the debate was turning into a "get British Rail" session, but we are not criticizing British Rail's work force—we are criticising its planning and investment procedures, its board, its senior management and the Government. The ordinary employees must accept decisions made at those levels, while they themselves have no input. It is not a case of getting British Rail because it is inefficient. We are getting at the way in which British Rail has been coralled by the Government into making decisions which are neither suitable for London and the south-east nor appropriate——

Mr. Waller: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 43.

Division No. 24]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Freeman, Roger


Alexander, Richard
French, Douglas


Allason, Rupert
Fry, Peter


Amos, Alan
Gale, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Robert
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Barron, Kevin
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bellingham, Henry
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Benyon, W.
Ground, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Burt, Alistair
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butler, Chris
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunter, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Janman, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Day, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Durant, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Favell, Tony
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fookes, Dame Janet
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marek, Dr John


Forth, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Monro, Sir Hector


Franks, Cecil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus





Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Norris, Steve
Thorne, Neil


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Trippier, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhodes James, Robert
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ryder, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Sackville, Hon Tom
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, Sir John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speed, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sumberg, David
Dr. Keith Hampson and


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. Humfrey Malins.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hardy, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Haynes, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Janner, Greville


Buckley, George J.
Lewis, Terry


Callaghan, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Dalyell, Tam
Sheerman, Barry


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Dobson, Frank
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Dunn, Bob
Spearing, Nigel


Eastham, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Faulds, Andrew



Flynn, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Foster, Derek
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Fyfe, Maria
Mr. Andrew Rowe.


Godman, Dr Norman A.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tony Banks (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the arcane procedures of this place is that I must put on a top hat to raise a point of order during a Division. You will know, as we all do, that the normal custom in this place is that there should be no instructions on private Bills and that hon. Members should be allowed to make up their own minds without being pressured by the party managers. It is manifestly obvious by the turnout in the Ayes Lobby that pressure has been put on hon. Members by the Whips. Is it in order for the Government to use the payroll vote to push this measure through?

Mr. Speaker: How hon. Members vote in the Chamber is not a matter for the Chair.

The House having divided: Ayes 146, Noes 21.

Division No. 25]
[10.11 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert


Alexander, Richard
Amos, Alan






Arbuthnot, James
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Atkins, Robert
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Atkinson, David
Harris, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Haynes, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bellingham, Henry
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunter, Andrew


Benyon, W.
Irvine, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jack, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Janman, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Browne, John (Winchester)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Buckley, George J.
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butler, Chris
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cash, William
Knox, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Latham, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Ivan


Chope, Christopher
Lightbown, David


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Lilley, Peter


Clelland, David
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Cran, James
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mans, Keith


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marek, Dr John


Day, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Devlin, Tim
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Monro, Sir Hector


Dover, Den
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Durant, Tony
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Eastham, Ken
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steve


Favell, Tony
Paice, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Patnick, Irvine


Fookes, Dame Janet
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forman, Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Riddick, Graham


Forth, Eric
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Foster, Derek
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ryder, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Sackville, Hon Tom


Franks, Cecil
Shaw, David (Dover)


Freeman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


French, Douglas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Fry, Peter
Speed, Keith


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


George, Bruce
Steen, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Stevens, Lewis


Goodlad, Alastair
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sumberg, David


Gregory, Conal
Summerson, Hugo


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ground, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hardy, Peter
Thorne, Neil





Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Trippier, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Dr. Keith Hampson and


Wheeler, Sir John
Mr. Humfrey Malins.




NOES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beith, A. J.
Lewis, Terry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Morgan, Rhodri


Callaghan, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Dalyell, Tam
Spearing, Nigel


Dobson, Frank



Duffy, A. E. P.
Tellers for the Noes:


Dunn, Bob
Mr. Andrew Rowe and


Flynn, Paul
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Godman, Dr Norman A.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill shall be presented to this House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of this House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of this House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the Session 1988–89 which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1988–89 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Road Traffic Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — Road Safety Bill

Postponed proceedings on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, resumed.

Mr. McCartney: It is some time since I was brought to an emergency stop by Mr. Deputy Speaker to make way for the private business. I want to consider the issues raised by clauses 1 and 3, which I failed to deal with prior to the suspension of this debate. I want to consider random breath testing to see whether those clauses can be improved in Committee.
I make no apology for referring to specific cases that involve the death of a young child and a young adult. I dealt with one case personally and the other came to my notice as a result of a press report. I will refer to those cases not to sensationalise the debate, but to bring a different perspective to the statistics. When deaths occur in accidents, we are dealing with human beings. Young lives are lost and family life is destroyed as a result of the stresses and strains created by that loss of life.
Although I support clauses 1 and 3, I want to refer to certain cases to show why I believe that we shall need to consider strengthening those clauses in Committee. We must take account of what has happened and consider the feelings of families who have been affected by tragic deaths and injuries. We must make it clear to those involved in reckless driving and reckless driving involving drink that there is no hiding place left for them in Britain. Hon. Members must make it absolutely clear to the police, the prosecution services and the judiciary that we expect them to act accordingly when cases involving dangerous and reckless driving and drunken driving come before the courts.
I considered the Bill in the context of three criteria, whether it fitted those criteria and whether I could wholeheartedly support it or support it with reservations. In Committee, the Government should seriously consider making the Bill a non-party political issue and strengthening aspects of it. The three criteria are, first, the extent to which offences are understood by the travelling public; secondly, the enforceability of penalties, in particular in respect of prosecution policy and interpretation by the courts; and, thirdly, the extent to which penalties will act as a deterrent and, therefore, lead to an improvement in the standard of driving.
I start with clause 3 and refer to two young children, Christopher Varma aged seven, and lain Varma, his brother, aged 14. I pay tribute to their father, Satinda, and their mother, Linda, who have courageously campaigned not only because of what happened to their family and the destruction that was caused by an accident on 21 June 1987, but to try to prevent such a tragedy happening to other children. Tragically, since the accident, their wish has not been carried out. Day in and day out, children are mown down and lives are destroyed in a second by a driver who has taken drink or by a driver who has no consideration for other road or public highway users.
On 21 June 1987 in Blackpool, young lain and Christopher were doing what many children do in the summer, visiting a local school fete. They became bored with the fete and decided to go to a local sweet shop and then return home to mother. Unfortunately, on their way to the sweet shop they were involved in an accident when they were mown down by the rider of a 1000 cc Kawasaki motor cycle. Young Christopher, aged seven, was killed almost instantaneously, but Lain survived with permanent disabilities. In a few seconds of madness that young life was lost and a family's peace of mind and happiness were destroyed for ever.
What happened thereafter is not only a disaster for the family but is a stain on the judicial system and a public disgrace in respect of the tragic death of one of the young lads, Christopher, and the permanent disability of his brother. As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall read a short version of a report of the court proceedings, to give an understanding of what has happened and why it has happened not just to the Varma family but to hundreds and perhaps thousands of families who have become the victims of drinking and driving or of people who just did not give a damn about others who use the highways. In the tragic circumstances, I hope that the House will recognise that clauses 1 and 3 are insufficient to meet the task before us.
On 21 June, a 24-year-old baker called Henry Staals on his new motor cycle killed Christopher and seriously injured lain. He was travelling at a speed that was recognised to be at about 60 mph in a residential part of Blackpool. Indeed, it was said that even the 30 mph limit on that road would have been far too fast in the circumstances.
Mr. Richard Isaacson, who was prosecuting, told the jury that the tragedy happened when Christopher and his 14-year-old brother, lain, had attended a fete at Highfield school. It was a perfect summer day but the boys, who were not with their parents, were apparently bored and decided to return home to Ashworth court. But when they were crossing Highfield road at about 4 pm a 1000cc black Kawasaki motor cycle, with its headlights blazing, knocked them down. Mr. Isaacson claimed that the bike was driven in such a manner as to make an accident almost inevitable if anyone got in its way. Mr. Isaacson told the jury:
Tragically for him, as well as for those young boys, they got in his way.
Some witnesses who were overtaken by the motor bike or who saw it from the pavement thought that it was travelling at 60 mph. Mr. Isaacson told the jury:
If you are sure he was travelling at speeds of up to 60 mph, that is a very reckless course of driving on any basis.
The prosecution alleged that Staals was so determined to enjoy driving his motor cycle that he gave no thought to the manner in which it was driven.
At the end of the trial, Staals was found guilty, but I shall tell hon. Members what happened and the advice of the judge—not in my words, but in those of Christopher's mum, Linda, who wrote to me on 20 February this year, stating:
20 June 1987: My seven-year-old son Christopher was killed and his fourteen-year-old brother lain critically injured by a speeding motorcyclist.
October 1988: At Preston Crown Court the motorbike rider was found not guilty of causing death by reckless driving, guilty only of careless driving, fined £250 and banned for two years.


Murder—for that is what it is—on our roads is condoned by society. Innocent victims have no redress even when a Miscarriage of Justice is admitted by the authorities.
I want to change the law to give the innocent victim
the same rights as those appearing before other courts, such as the Court of Appeal.
In those anguished words, that mother was saying that her son's life was worth only £250. However, what made it worse for the family was that when the judge passed the sentence, he then advised the court of the defendant's previous convictions. In 1984 that gentleman was fined £450 and banned for 18 months for riding a motor cycle at a police officer who had tried to stop him for speeding. This was the motor cyclist's fourth serious offence, yet he did not suffer the loss of his liberty, only a miserable fine of £250. There was no redress for the family or the victim.
I could quote many other cases because I have with me a file of similar cases involving children or young teenagers throughout Britain who were mown down by motorists and motor cyclists, some of whom were drunk while others were simply completely out of their heads with concern about themselves, but for no one else. None of the drivers has ever served a prison sentence or had a fine of more than a few hundred quid, and none has ever been banned from driving for life or faced a severe ban of more than three years. Surely that cannot be right when someone drives recklessly or in such a way as to be a danger to someone else, and when that person ends another person's life or damages another person, destroying the rest of her or his life. Surely someone who does that should not walk away with only a paltry fine and with no other consequences and be quickly back on the road either on a motor cycle or in a car.
That is why I believe that in Committee we should seriously consider whether the balance is correct. I am not a solicitor or barrister—I know that the Secretary of State is a distinguished member of the legal profession in Scotland—but, as a lay person, I believe that we need seriously to consider a charge of culpable manslaughter in such cases.
I disagree with the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) who suggested that people who are drunk do not know what they are doing when they drive. That is no longer true. Perhaps 15 or 20 years ago people could make the excuse, albeit the weak one, that they did not understand the impairment to their driving abilities that would be caused by their taking drink. After the years of campaign by Government and non-Government agencies and the change in attitude in society to drinking and driving, anyone who takes a drink must understand the consequences for their driving ability. When, as in the next case to which I shall refer, someone drinks four or five pints of lager before driving, that person is as guilty as anyone of lifting a weapon and deliberately striking a person down.
There is no doubt in my mind that people make a choice to drink and to drink to excess and that their action leads them to maim or kill another person. Therefore, they have a liability. They are culpable. Manslaughter is the only relevant charge in those circumstances. Any lesser charge does not match the consequences of the action taken by the driver. That is even more true of drivers who do not drink but deliberately, as in the case which I shall mention, drive recklessly.
I refer to these cases on a general basis. In this House or anywhere else we should not impose double jeopardy.
The gentleman involved appeared before a court and received a fine, however derisory. However, on the general principle, is it right that someone who has a record of serious accidents involving motor bikes or cars, flaunts good road sense and the rules of the highway on a regular basis and as a consequence destroys the lives of young people should not be culpable and should not be charged with homicide or manslaughter? Those are the only charges that such people should face when they come before the courts. Minimal sentences in such cases are not a deterrent.
If we are to seize the opportunity to challenge that small but significant minority who consistently drive motor bikes or cars in such a way as to put people's lives at risk, we should make it clear to them that we shall remove their liberty and that when they come out of prison we shall remove their ability quickly to go back on the roads. It is important that in Committee we seriously consider improving and upgrading what has been suggested in clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill.
I and the vast majority of people who are put in the appalling position of having their families destroyed by the loss of one, two, three or, as has happened in some cases, four members of their family do not seek revenge. Revenge is not my motive. Nor is it the motive of many of the people to whom I have spoken. They genuinely feel that, in their terrible and tragic disaster, the lives of their families should not have been wasted by allowing the carnage on our roads to continue. A change in the law is sought, not for revenge but out of genuine concern for others and the desire that in the years ahead people are not destroyed or disabled by drivers who drink or drive in a reckless and dangerous manner.
The last case to which I shall refer is that of Martin Allsop. His case is not one with which I have dealt personally but it was highlighted earlier this year in the Daily Mirror in such a way as to give Martin's mum Pam the chance to say things that she would have liked to say but until then had not been able to. Martin's case not only demonstrates the tragedy of the loss of his life, but says a great deal about our position in the House, the law as it currently stands, alcohol abuse and the way in which the Crown prosecution service and the police can contrive that someone who should be charged with a more serious offence is not and, as a consequence, walks away almost free from killing someone—for surely that it what they have done.
Two years ago Martin Allsop was killed on a pedestrian crossing by Howard Orpwood, a driving instructor. Mr. Orpwood was charged with causing death by reckless driving. He ploughed into three people—Martin and his two friends—at 60 mph after overtaking a car which had stopped to let Martin and his friends cross the road. Witnesses claimed that Orpwood had drunk five pints of lager before getting into his car. At the time of the accident he had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. Martin's two friends were badly injured but, fortunately, they survived. Orpwood was acquitted of the imprisonable offence of causing death by reckless driving and found guilty of the lesser charge of careless driving, which does not carry a custodial sentence. He was banned from driving for two years and fined £250.
That is the sort of disgrace which we should not allow to continue. We should amend clause 1 or clause 3 to make it clear to the judiciary and the police what we mean. I have


reservations about the elements of part I and enforceability. We must ensure that the Crown prosecution service and the police have clear guidelines and understand how the House feels about offences of the sort to which I have referred. We must ensure also that the courts interpret properly and reflect accurately the view that we take in this place. Let us ensure that sentences act as a deterrent to those who drink and drive.
The two tragic cases to which I have referred are typical of thousands of others. Before the Bill becomes an Act, more young people will be killed as a result of reckless or dangerous driving, with or without drink. How many more children's lives are to be destroyed? How many more will have to live through the loss of their loved ones? I am sorry that I become emotional, but I have met families that have suffered in that way. Let us think of the parents of a seven-year-old child who are told by an ambulance driver that their child has been ripped from them, and who learn about a year later that the person who killed their child is driving a vehicle once again after paying a fine that most people would regard as entirely inappropriate.
The House owes it to the Varma family and all the other families that have suffered so grievously to take every step possible to ensure that those who drink and drive and kill will be charged with manslaughter. We must ensure also that those who drive recklessly or dangerously and cause the death or injury of others are dealt with in the same way. I have no doubt what the CPS should do. The advice that we give to the judiciary should leave it in no doubt how we want it to deal with such offenders. To deal with them in any other way would be a denial of the rights of families. We cannot bring back their loved ones who have gone, but we can ensure that others do not go the same way.

Mr. Stephen Day: First, I join all those who have welcomed my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Department of Transport on its recent announcement on adult rear seat-belt wearing.
I wish to put forward the views of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which I am joint chairman. The council welcomes the Bill's provisions, especially those on speed cameras and red-light cameras. It welcomes also the new penalties, but is concerned that enforcement should be given a higher priority than appears to have been attached to it. It welcomes the provision to make disqualified drivers who have been found guilty of serious driving offences undergo a driving test before they are able to regain their licence. It is concerned that driving with excess alcohol is exempt from that provision. We believe that there are serious omissions from the Bill.
Who worries about the penalties if the chances of being caught are not great? Rationalisation of police effort in some forces has transformed mobile traffic units into multi-purpose mobile units with the resultant loss of a highly visible police presence on the roadside. PACTS believes that, due to the increase in traffic volume, traffic

policing establishment levels should, if possible, be restored to those of the early 1980s—about11 per cent. of all policing should be concerned with traffic.
We support the greater use of disqualification and the proposals for the retesting, retraining and rehabilitation of offenders. However, we do not understand the logic of omitting drink-driving offences from the retesting proposals. Drink-drivers are, by definition, irresponsible drivers and their omission from retesting removes a useful penalty.
The Government's reliance on retraining is misconceived for, as the road traffic law review pointed out, the effectiveness of retraining has yet to be demonstrated even for those who might be identified as suitable. We believe that the retesting proposals of the White Paper should be extended to cover drink-driving offences as well as bad driving and other offences requiring disqualification.
The new offences and changes in penalty proposed in the Bill are welcome, but they must be seen as part of a package of measures to reduce drinking and driving. Since the introduction of the breathalyser in 1967, the number of excess alcohol offences detected has quadrupled. Surveys have shown that the chances of detection of excess alcohol when driving are extremely low, ranging from one in 250 trips in some areas to one in 4,000 in others. In most parts of the country the perceived chances of detection are similarly low.
A recent survey by the transport and road research laboratory suggested that 42 per cent. of those who admitted to drink-driving believed that their chances of being caught were small. It is true that the figures of those guilty of drink-driving have been steadily improving. Why does the Minister believe that leaving the situation as it is will make any impression on those 42 per cent. who drink and drive and believe that they will not be caught? Clearly, further action is necessary.
The Government have acted, rightly, on adult rear seat belts because that will save lives. They have accepted that persuasion has gone as far as it can in achieving their targets. Given that more lives could be saved with the introduction of random breath testing, why does not the same logic apply? The present law allowing breath testing under two separate sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988 —the result of a court decision—is a mess. It leads to anomalies in enforcement and it gives no clear public message.
Ministers appear to accept the principle of random breath testing every time they quote the fact that it is possible for the police to act under the present law. Why will not they make the principle explicit in practice? In principle, the argument appears to be accepted. Therefore, we are merely debating the most practical methods of enforcement.
PACTS believes that existing breath testing powers should be supplemented by an additional power to allow random breath testing as well as signposted roadside checkpoints, authorised by a senior police officer. That would provide the element of deterrence that is lacking from current procedures, which is necessary to allow the police to secure a significant reduction in road accidents.
Of the 3,400 responses to the Home Office consultation paper on changes to the breath testing legislation, 3,000 favoured additional powers to be given to the police. A recent survey published by the Government's transport and road research laboratory in November suggested that 77 per cent. of those interviewed supported such powers


and 70 per cent. believed that they would work. Given that level of support, the lack of those powers in the Bill is a serious omission.
I believe that the Bill is devalued by its failure to tackle fully drink-driving. It is a good Bill that has missed the opportunity of being excellent. The Department must look again at breath testing and, if nothing else, look again at including alcohol-related offences in the retesting procedure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologised earlier for not being here for the opening speeches from the Front Benches. I was in a Committee and came as soon as it finished.
The background to the Bill has been well rehearsed, both today and earlier. Many of us must be under threat of being swamped by an excess of road traffic. Government policy in the Department of Transport is like an oil tanker—it heads in one direction and it takes a lot to change its course to another direction. I am hopeful that, if only slowly, the Department's policy will become less one of supporting road traffic and more one of increasing support for traffic by rail and for public transport generally. If so, we shall begin to do things automatically that the Bill specifically seeks to do.
Other Members have given different figures, but the latest figures I have show that in the decade most recently reported there were more than 62,000 road deaths in this country and fewer than 1,000 deaths on our railways. lf the Department's projection of a 142 per cent. increase in road traffic by the year 2025 is correct, unless we do more to reverse that imbalance we risk many more fatalities and injuries. It is therefore not surprising that people become emotional about the subject. None of us would be critical of people such as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for the way in which he addressed the 'ways that people and their families are personally and collectively mutilated by the results of others' irresponsibility.
My colleagues and I welcome part I as far as it goes. Its objective, to summarise it in one sentence, is to prevent and punish drivers who are irresponsible either because they drink and drive or because they are managing vehicles which are mechanically defective and thus a liability to others on or near the road.
When I used to practise as a lawyer, I had experience of both prosecuting and defending people in such cases. Naturally I was vigilant, as I hope we all are, of the civil liberties of all, and careful and wary of the idea that the police should have the right to stop drivers at random in order—as they would say—to test them for an offence. The reality is that we crossed that threshold a long time ago.
Those of us who drive are all at risk of being stopped for a vehicle check, which is automatically assumed to be an acceptable premise on which a policeman can stop a motorist. The police do not have to have a reasonable belief that a motorist has committed an offence to carry out a vehicle check—it is sufficient that they regard it as an important part of their procedures, and it is carried out on a regular basis. If it is done because police believe it is important that vehicles should be safe, sound and mechanically valid, surely the same should apply, or even more so, if there is a chance that a driver has been drinking and is under the influence of alcohol. The rightful

argument of civil libertarians is countered by the simple argument that anybody who makes a decision to drive a vehicle must accept the consequences and responsibilities of it and accept that they will be at risk of being stopped by police to ensure that they are driving responsibly.
I welcome the fact that the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), whose speech I listened to with interest, and others have come round to that view. A good thing about the Bill is that its long title is so short and general as to permit amendment of the Bill. From what I have heard of the debate and of the arguments—not just figures —of the British Medical Association and others, there is every opportunity for the Bill to be amended either in Committee or on the Floor of the House and I hope and believe that there will be no resistance if it is seen to be the will of the House that we should take the opportunity to legislate for random breath testing. I hope that that view will not be resisted, because if it is widely held by people after careful consideration, we must respond. I entirely accept the view expressed by the hon. Member for Makerfield and others—that we can in that way act to prevent, particularly in the interests of the young, what has become a horrendous and regular carnage on our roads.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made the point that the legal technicalities which allow police to stop motorists are not understood by the public at large and therefore not easily capable of being properly executed by the police themselves. It would be far better to say to the relevant agencies—traffic police, police in general, and others with powers in respect of lesser offences—"You have the power to intervene if you believe that a motorist is acting without the law, whatever that suspected breach may be."
It follows that the law must be enforceable, which is the bridge between parts land II of the Bill. We can pass all the laws that we wish in respect of drink driving or mechanically inadequate vehicles, or to improve parking restrictions, but unless we have people available adequately to enforce those laws, they are as nothing. All right hon. and hon. Members will have experience of parking controls, covered by part II, which are wonderful in theory but no use in practice, because no one enforces them. To cite one example, when I drive to the House I travel down Grange road in Bermondsey, which is capable of carrying two lanes of traffic, but a goods vehicle is regularly parked outside business premises, converting that two-lane road into a single-lane road for about half a mile just before the traffic lights at the start of Tower Bridge road.

Mr. Corbyn: Is it an old taxi?

Mr. Hughes: No, it is not—it is a relatively old van.
Despite regular representations having been made, the restrictions which already exist are not enforced, with the result that that route into central London is regularly blocked. Unless there is adequate enforcement through the provision of the right personnel, part II will be no use either.
I endorse the remark of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that we are again in a muddle over the differing powers and responsibilities given to those expected to enforce the law. There should be a clear hierarchy in one chain of command—I do not mind whether it is a police or local authority chain of command,


though the logic is that it should come under the police because we would not entrust enforcement of serious offences to anyone who is not a police officer. Traffic and other wardens should work under a clear hierarchy so that they can deal with all traffic offences, and so that the public can recognise that they have that authority.
We then need to deal with the two other problems that part II seeks to tackle. I share the view of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that it is anomalous that half of a United Kingdom Road Traffic Bill should be dedicated to establishing a system for London. It is illogical not to allow decisions concerning regional and metropolitan traffic provision to be taken by the metropolitan authorities in the areas in question. The reason in London is that it does not have a metropolitan traffic authority. The Bill gives powers to the Government in London, and to local authorities elsewhere. The sooner we return to a coherent and democratic regional transport authority for London, the better.

Mr. Corbyn: An elected authority.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, an elected regional authority for London. A small agency within the Department is no substitute—not least because it does not have the local accountability provided by democratically-elected transport authorities elsewhere in this country. That is the fundamental objection to part II. We hope that the situation will be reversed as soon as possible, and that the Government will realise that incoherent transport planning in London has produced a nightmare, and not a dream.
The three ways to deal with urban traffic congestion are to increase public transport and reduce the number of private vehicles, to increase the cost of road use—many eminent hon. Members have argued for that today—and to make roads more user-friendly for cyclists and pedestrians, and less user-friendly for motorists.
I understand that there is a good precedent for charging people more to use roads. In Singapore, where supplementary licensing was introduced for urban areas, there was a 40 per cent. reduction in road traffic. I know that there are objections—one can always argue that the rich can pay and can therefore afford to use roads in the urban areas while the poor cannot. However, in many countries the evidence shows that some form of congested urban area licensing brings in revenue which can be used for other things, and acts as a disincentive to road use. I hope that we shall soon move in that direction.
We should introduce traffic calming measures. There is a whole range of those. The introduction of red routes in London may alleviate problems on the roads involved, but all the side roads off them will be just as blighted by traffic

as they were before. Without environmental road improvements with through routes for bicycles only, chicanes, more road humps and differential surfaces—many methods can be used—throughout our urban areas, many residential areas will continue to be blighted. People will use them as rat runs, for short cuts, and for parking. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield cited examples of non-residents constantly parking in residential streets at no cost, blighting the streets for residents and for other people who may need to use them.
The cost of on-street parking has to rise. One can always exempt residential parking, but if people realise that it will be extraordinarily difficult to find a place in which to park and also extremely expensive, it will act as an additional disincentive. That does not work if the public transport system does not provide an adequate alternative. If it does, people will be encouraged to use public transport, and to leave the car at home or outside the urban area—for example, in park-and-ride facilities which seem to have been successfully pioneered in some cities.
We have to be fairly tough about the times and circumstances in which deliveries can be made to retail outlets. The times have to be reasonable so that businesses can carry on, but if a main road is the only point of ingress and egress for vehicles, there could be restrictions. It would be perfectly proper to allow deliveries only outside rush hours and the working day—that is, early in the morning or late in the evening—or to allow deliveries in small vehicles. It is perfectly possible for the Government to take such measures.
One thing that reduces the amount of money taken from motorists by the local authorities in London is that every borough—there are 33 authorities—has a different meter system and different tariffs, so that one never knows, from one borough to the next, what coins will be required, for what period they will work, or the form of meter. Local authority autonomy is indeed a wonderful thing, and I defend it, but, if we are to maximise revenue, co-ordination of traffic meters in London would be no bad thing. Let us try to encourage local authorities to have a standard form of meter. They can have differential pricing—it need not affect the tariff rate that they impose—but for heaven's sake let us make it easier for motorists to have the right coins to put into the meter rather than park and risk putting nothing in, which results in non-payment on a regular basis and if they get caught or chased for payment they still do not pay.
Although the Bill is welcome in some respects, it does not go nearly far enough. I hope that by the time it becomes law random breath testing will have been included and part II will have been improved—as an interim measure, until we have a proper, democratic transport authority for London.

Mr. Alan Amos: I join other hon. Members on both sides of the House in warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on his introduction of such a comprehensive Bill, which both rationalises and modernises the law on drink-driving and significantly increases the penalties, while also taking steps to deal with those selfish drivers who think that they have the right to block the public highway by parking wherever and whenever they want.
There are, however, some points that I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to consider further. The first involves the creation of a separate national traffic police force to enable regular police officers to be freed from myriad minor traffic duties—I except drink-driving offences—and deployed to perform criminal duties more suited to their training. This is not a new proposal, although it may sound radical. I feel that road traffic policing in general is too important to be left to traffic wardens or local councils. I feel that it would benefit less from an increase in their powers than from the establishment of a small, highly specialist force equipped to deal with the many lesser traffic offences.
Many hours of police time are needlessly taken up with such offences, which—although very important—are not criminal in the accepted sense of the word. The police are burdened by the frustration of having to spend so much of each working day dealing with them. If my proposal were adopted, many aspects of road traffic law with which the police have not the manpower or the resources to deal effectively would be properly enforced. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to consider it seriously: such schemes are operating both in New Zealand—where I was recently able to observe the system at first hand—and in some American states, and they are working extremely well.
My proposed system would also remove a major source of friction between the normal law-abiding citizen and the police. Minor traffic offences often lead to the only occasion on which such people come into contact with the police and I am sure that the police themselves would welcome such a move.
Secondly, I am pleased that the Bill deals in such depth with the problems of traffic management in London and, in particular, that it provides for increased powers to authorise wheel clamping and the removal of vehicles. The statistics tell us that wheel clamping has drastically reduced the rate of illegal parking in the capital. However, as I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise, clamping a car for what amounts in some cases to three or four hours does nothing to relieve that particular section of road from the obstruction, but merely prolongs the problem. It makes far more sense simply to tow away offending vehicles than to leave them obstructing the highway. That can be done by contracting the service out to the private sector.
"Tow-away" should be extended both in the capital and in other areas to help free our roads of badly and illegally parked vehicles. Where tow-away schemes operate in the United States and Canada, they have proved an extremely effective deterrent. Tow-away zones should be extended to all cities and should become the normal way of dealing with the illegal and selfish blocking of public highways. I can vouch for the efficacy of the system: when I was in the

United States and Canada I did not dare to park in a tow-away zone, although I might have tried it on in other areas.
The establishment of red routes in London is a n excellent if long overdue measure, welcomed by the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the British Road Federation. It will probably double road capacity overnight in many areas. But why stop with just some of the capital's major routes? Why stop in London? Surely the principle is right and indivisible: selfish behaviour must not be allowed to clog the nation's arteries and create a horrendous cost, which the CBI has calculated to be about £15 billion a year. Please can the scheme be extended to all arterial roads and other cities? If we are serious about encouraging people lo switch from private cars to public transport, inability o park one's car and clog the highway will be the most effective method of persuasion—far more effective than ill-conceived road-pricing schemes which are unfair, impractical and unenforceable.
Like many hon. Members, I share the concern expressed over the evil of drink-driving. Society must make it clear beyond any doubt that if someone decides to drive a vehicle after drinking, the punishment will be so severe that he or she will be unable to do so again. I pay tribute to the tireless work that the Government have undertaken to get their message across. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to tighten the penalties for drivers who are convicted of drink-driving crimes. However, I do not feel that they go far enough. Five years' imprisonment for convicted drink-drivers who cause death may seem harsh, but how much harsher life is for the families who are left without a father, mother, a son or a daughter. Five years' imprisonment becomes 18 months with good behaviour. A death in a family lasts for ever.
Three people in Britain will have died today because of a drinking driver—that is more than will be murdered—and 45 men, women and children will have been seriously injured today, which is more than will be mugged or assaulted. Each fatal accident costs society about £600,000. The total bill for drink-driving in Britain is more than £1 million each day in lost production, demands on the national health service and damage to property.
I am delighted that the figures are falling rapidly, but a more realistic deterrence system would further reduce the figures. That is why I totally support a random breath testing scheme, by which I mean an established system whereby motorists can be stopped at any point on the highway to be breathalysed. Refusal would be an offence. A scheme along these lines has proved to be very successful in Australia and Scandinavia. Road deaths in New South Wales fell by 21 per cent. during the first three years and, more significantly, the number of drivers killed who were over the legal limit fell by 37 per cent.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to look at this matter closely during the passage of the Bill. Increased penalties must accompany random breath testing, and imprisonment for at least 10 years for drink-driving offences involving injury or death must be the norm. In Committee we should also consider the deterrent effect of somebody losing his or her licence for a minimum of 10 years.
I can do no better than to quote a short letter from one of my constituents that I received this morning. It is from Debbi Piper, aged 15 years, 10 months. She writes from Corbridge in my constituency and says:


Dear Mr. Amos,
I am writing this letter to express my views on drunk driving. During the month of April 1986, my best friend, Sandra Mitchell, was tragically killed by a drunk driver. She was just eleven years of age and was just settling into a new town after a move from Stockport. She was very well loved by all, family and friends. I have since moved from Formby in Merseyside, which was where the incident occurred, to the above address. Sandra's mother featured in last year's Campaign Against Drunk Driving which brought back many fond memories of Sandra.
The purpose of this letter is to convey my ideas to prevent many more deaths like Sandra's. If during the Christmas period, which is, as you know, the time when the most heaviest drinking is done, when drinkers enter Pubs and Clubs and other buildings of the same manner, they hand over their car keys to the bar person who would hang them on hooks like at a hotel and when the person comes to collect his/her keys, the bar person would be the one to decide whether or not the drinker is fit to drive or not. If not then a free taxi service would be available to take them home.
I feel very strongly that everything possible should be done to prevent deaths like Sandra's.
That is a constructive suggestion which we should consider in Committee.
There has been much debate in recent years about the fitting, use and effectiveness of rear seat belts in cars for both children and adults. We have now reached a point where it is compulsory for children under 14 to wear seat belts where fitted in cars, and there is no question but that this saves many lives each year. It seems to me to be only sensible and logical, therefore, that the requirement should be extended to school minibuses. However, I would not wish to put any extra financial burden on bus and coach companies, so the requirement should apply only to new minibuses where seat belts will, I hope, have been fitted and to vehicles that already have seat belts. I do not wish to exaggerate the problem, but in 1988 more than 550 schoolchildren were killed or injured in road accidents involving coaches and minibuses; the vast majority of those children were seated.
My final point concerns the delays that occur before vehicle operators who are in breach of the law lose their operator's licence. Even though irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing and breaches of the law may be held by traffic area offices, illegal operators can continue to trade and may even do so after a court appearance and sentence. That is wrong and is an abuse of the law. I hope that it will be considered and that the loophole that enables operators to continue trading will be closed. I should like the existing powers of traffic Commissioners to be extended to enable them to confiscate vehicles of persistent offenders.
Many other details can be discussed in Committee. I believe that there should be a new offence for the so-called courier motor cyclists who weave in and out of static and moving traffic, which is very dangerous and should be stopped. I should like to see a ban on the use of hand-held car telephones, which is also dangerous and should be stopped. I know that the Whips want me to sit down, so I shall do so, but those points should be considered in Committee.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate is obviously important and the Bill is two separate Bills.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and others, I very
much welcome the

concentration on road safety in part I of the Bill. I agree that many of the proposals to punish drivers who knowingly drink and then maim people are far too soft. I have no sympathy for such people. They should try to put themselves in the mind of a parent who has lost a child or close relative because some idiot knowingly got drunk and then mowed them down at night in a car. Nothing can bring those people back. The fact that a year or two later they get their licence back and carry on driving is repugnant. I hope that their licences are taken away for a long time and that we consider prison sentences for people who, in effect, commit murder. An analogy is someone who has a licence for a shotgun and uses it dangerously, which results in injury or death, but two years later gets the licence and gun back. That is not acceptable, and something must be done about it. I hope that in Committee the Bill will be strengthened because there is broad consensus that it should be strengthened.
There is an annual campaign and constant publicity against drink-driving and school children well understand the dangers of it, but perhaps we should address ourselves to the drink culture. The opposition to drink-driving is well known and well publicised, and long may it stay so, but there is a culture surrounding alcohol—that somehow it is good and grown up to drink a lot. We must consider the advertising techniques that drink companies use and curtail them. Too many lives are ruined by alcoholism as well as by deaths caused by drunken driving.
The wearing of rear seat belts is obviously sensible and important. I spend a lot of time travelling around London by all forms of transport, and I find particularly irritating the number of people who drive quite fast in heavy traffic with a car phone in one hand and who attempt to force their way through traffic. That is extremely dangerous. I do not care for the argument that whenever the phone rings they should pull over to the side of the road and answer the call. The presence of a phone in a car is distracting for the driver. Even if he does not answer the phone immediately when it rings but pulls over and stops, it is still an irritant and a distraction. Strict regulations must be introduced on car phones.
In Committee, we should consider how good the driving test is. There are no repeat tests; hon. Members who passed their test 20 or 25 years ago have not had to take another test. A case can be made for refresher tests or probationary driving, whereby someone who passes a test has a probationary period of perhaps six months, as in France, during which time he can gain experience of dual-carriageway and motorway driving. It is not sensible that a person can pass a driving test and on the same afternoon head out in a sports car up the M1. There should be a form of probation.
There are speed limits, although they are not enforced on the motorways. Is it right that cars should be advertised for sale as capable of going at 140 or 150 mph? Why are such cars sold when there is no road on which a driver can go over 70 mph legally? The idea that a car can travel at 140 mph may seem attractive and clearly the temptation is to drive at that speed.
The Bill does not provide an opportunity to consider transport and traffic policies. Traffic is predicted to increase by 142 per cent. as we move into the next century. No roads, and certainly no roads in urban areas, can cope with that. We must consider restraining car use, particularly in urban areas, and consider the availability and accessibility of public transport. There is a widely


believed myth that the more people have cars, the more mobile the population is. That is not so. It is true that people become more mobile if they have a car, but the quid pro quo is that villages lose their bus services and urban areas lose their public transport facilities and that for the people who cannot afford to drive, do not own or want a car, life becomes less, rather than more, mobile. We should consider what we are doing.
Only 10 days ago, the Department of Transport announced enormous expenditure to create a fourth. fifth and possibly sixth lane in each direction on the M25. That motorway is already the largest car park in the country. I should have been more interested if the Department had proposed putting parking meters all the way round it—at least some income would have been derived from the traffic jams. It is ludicrous. There should be proper transport planning that encourages people to use public transport and provides public transport that people can use. If there is enough orbital traffic around London to jam up the six lanes of the M25 most of the time—three in each direction —that leads me to believe that there are enough people and enough freight vehicles travelling on the M25 that could use trains. I hope that we shall consider those points rather than calmly predict an ever-increasing number of private cars and the ever-increasing damage that they will do to the environment.
Clause 6, which deals with the fairly new offence of dangerous cycling—it was dealt with in earlier legislation —is extremely subjective and is hostile to the interests of cycling. I hope that the Minister will clarify it. Far from cyclists being implicity dangerous people who go around causing accidents, the vast majority of accidents involving cyclists are caused by motorists driving dangerously or by the lack of proper cycling facilities in urban areas. Too often, cycle lanes start and finish at road junctions but do not go through those junctions or across traffic islands.
I feel strongly about part Ii, which is really a separate Bill. I represent an inner-London constituency and have been involved in and campaigned on local transport matters for a long time. My constituency suffers from a high degree of traffic penetration—for want of a better word—and the level of car ownership is low. That is common to most of inner London. Impossible amounts of traffic come through our areas every morning and evening. That causes high levels of air pollution and gives rise to great danger to people living there. It needs to be dealt with and it can be dealt with only on the basis of regional or London-wide planning; it cannot be dealt with on a London borough basis.
Ever since the GLC was abolished, there has been no London-wide body. At least the Bill admits that there ought to be such a body, albeit the Secretary of State, who happens to represent a Scottish constituency. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that, but is it really on for him to be appointing a London traffic director who will decide the traffic policies for London as a whole?
The Secretary of State reminded us of the history of the red routes proposal. There have been some misconceptions about red routes. The then Secretary of State first announced red routes as an alternative to the motorway-building plans then envisaged for London—the south London assessment study, the west London environmental improvement route, the east London assessment study, the south circular route and all the rest of it. All were the subject of massive opposition in London.
In my constituency, 17,000 people wrote letters, signed petitions or sent postcards to the Department expressing their opposition to the road-building proposals. That is an enormous number. As a result, the then Secretary of State finally abandoned the road-building scheme and came up with the idea of red routes instead.
Red routes are, in a sense, priority routes. Their stated aim is to get more traffic through London on existing routes. They are, in effect, major roads by another name. They are designed to increase the use of existing road space and to speed up traffic. In the consultation exercise, they have been dressed up as favouring cyclists and buses. It is true that the proposals contain some improvements in bus routes and cyclists' facilities. But the powers to introduce new bus and cycle routes already exist. We do not need a traffic Commissioner for London to bring in more bus routes. I fear that the red routes are a means of forcing major routes through my area and through other parts of London. The Department of Transport has been highly disingenuous during the consultation exercise. First, it announced its intention to introduce red routes and produced a red routes plan. Then it announced that it intended to consult on the proposals. A large number of public meetings were held, some of which were attended by representatives of the Department, some by the consultants, some by the local authorities and some by all three. No public meeting held anywhere along the red route said that it supported the principle. There was overwhelming opposition to the proposals and there were overwhelming demands for better public transport and smaller volumes of traffic going through London. What did we get? Virtually the same principle has now been put forward by the Department.
I can tell the House that, in Committee, we shall table a lot of detailed amendments on the whole question because many of us believe that there is only one way in which to solve London's traffic problems. We must recognise that public transport provides the key. That means larger amounts of public money invested in public transport, more bus priority measures, the better use of existing rail facilities and the development of light rail rapid transit systems throughout London.

Mr. Spearing: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but does he agree that the nub of the case that the promoters of the red routes scheme will have to prove is this: given the legitimate needs of local people in terms of safety and trade, what additional flows can the schemes achieve that cannot be achieved by the use of existing powers, particularly at critical road junctions?

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the powers that are sought for the improvement of road safety and for bus priority measures and so on already exist. It seems to me that the only purpose of the proposals is to get a traffic director for London who will have powers of veto over what individual borough councils do and who will, in effect, become the appointed traffic authority for London. He or she will have power not only over the red routes but over the routes feeding into them and affected by them and over proposed new red routes throughout London.
I am extremely suspicious about that denial of local democracy. Instead, I want to see the election of a planning authority for London through a system of elected government under which people are representatives and are not told what to do by the Secretary of State's


representatives. As I explained earlier, far more resources should be devoted to public transport through subsidies, priority measures and a reduction in car travel into and out of central London.
All that can be achieved in several ways. It can be achieved by reducing the number of parking spaces in central London, instead of increasing it. It can also be achieved by physical means. I should prefer a reduction in the number of car-borne commuters travelling into and out of central London. Why should fewer than 15 per cent. of all commuter journeys into and out of central London cause chaos for the other 85 per cent.?
Such a change in approach would make London a nicer place in which to live. It would also make it a more mobile and safe city; and above all it would make it a much cleaner city. We are living in a highly congested, highly polluted, highly dangerous city because there is no serious planning to control the apparently irrepressible growth in the use of the motor car. The Department of Transport sees itself as presiding over the growth in the use of private cars in urban areas. It is not trying to control their use or to encourage investment in rail and public transport.
The Secretary of State kept on saying how much the Government are promoting an investment programme in the railway and public transport systems. That is extremely misleading. In reality, British Rail has been authorised to sell large amounts of its property to finance new rail developments. Exactly the same applies to London Regional Transport. We should be putting new money into our public transport systems and to do that we could end the subsidy on private cars. We could also do it by carrying out an environmental impact assessment of the cost to all of us of the ever-increasing use of cars in urban areas. We should assess how much our lives could be improved by improving public transport.
In many ways the Bill is a missed opportunity. I hope that the issues will be raised again in Committee. Londoners, in so far as they have been consulted on traffic and the red routes, were in favour of public transport, but they came out very strongly against urban road building, against route priority measures and against the imposition of a traffic director for London. Those latter aspects will be opposed strongly throughout the remaining stages of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: My constituents, and road users generally, welcome the Bill and particularly clauses 1, 2 and 5 relating to dangerous driving, careless and inconsiderate driving and causing danger to road users.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that my constituents are particularly concerned about the arrival of the M40, which is shortly to be completed close to the border of my constituency. They are concerned about the implications for the quality of life of the huge increase in the volume of traffic and particularly of the increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles thundering through residential areas. The increasing size of lorries is also causing my constituents concern as those vehicles pass by their houses.
I am only too aware of the strength of the transport lobby represented on the Opposition Benches and in

particular the strength of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association. I also acknowledge the interest of some of my colleagues in those matters. However, I want to make one or two points specifically about heavy goods vehicles.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made a serious point, about which many of our constituents are concerned, when he referred to the number of fatalities caused by heavy goods vehicles. As he said, the number is increasing and gives rise to serious concern.
An extremely serious accident, about which I have written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, occurred in fog on the M42 last month and claimed the lives of several people from Birmingham and elsewhere. The principal cause of those fatalities was heavy goods vehicles. Fatalities on west midlands roads in the past two years have predominantly involved heavy goods vehicles. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State also to take note of the concern expressed by some of my constituents as well as by myself about the increasing incidence of people being maimed or killed by heavy goods vehicles mowing them down on the emergency lane of a motorway or dual carriageway. I refer especially to an incident earlier this year when an entire family was wiped out by a lorry on the A38 in Staffordshire. The number of such incidents has grown significantly over the past few years.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that not only lorry drivers but the companies involved should be considered. Earlier today, I informed my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State of my concern at an illustration in the Daily Express of part of the difficulty that was caused on the M6 at the weekend. The difficulty was largely caused by lorries blocking all four lanes, including the emergency services lane. It is a matter of concern that the behaviour of the drivers of heavy goods vehicles is pressured by contracts placed upon them by their employers. When it can be proved that employers have ignored tachograph readings or placed unreasonable strains or responsibilities on drivers, the law should take action against the employer. However, it should also take action against irresponsible lorry drivers.
I agree with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that in the tragic circumstances in which a drunken motorist or motor cyclist maims or kills a child, the penalties currently imposed appear insufficient if not derisory. Nevertheless, in the west midlands and other areas recently there have been occasions when lorry drivers have maimed or killed and have not even been charged. There have been times when they have driven into stationary cars parked at the side of the road in the emergency lane, not on the highway, and have not been charged. The Bill should deal with reckless and dangerous driving of that kind.
I place specific emphasis on the fact that the driver of a 38-tonne lorry is significantly more likely than a car driver to maim, injure or kill not just one but up to a dozen people. Such a driver has extra responsibility. We expect the master of a large vessel, the captain of an aircraft, or the master of a large transport vehicle to take special care, so we should start to look seriously at the role of lorry drivers. I hope that that matter can be investigated in Committee.
There is good reason to ask that life bans on the driving of heavy goods vehicles or coaches should be imposed on


those who have been convicted of careless or reckless driving on more than one occasion. Many lives are at stake. I am seriously concerned by the high speed at which such vehicles travel on the motorways. Hon. Members who live in constituencies distant from London, including one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, will share the experience of driving at the legal limit on the motorway and being overtaken not only by buses and coaches travelling at significantly more than the limit, but also by articulated lorries, some of which belong to well-known haulage companies. There should be greater insistence and greater co-ordination with police forces to ensure that the speed limits relevent to those vehicles are observed.

Mr. McCartney: It is not just a question of some drivers driving dangerously—when they drive loads containing toxic chemicals and other highly dangerous materials, the community living alongside the motorway also becomes affected when the load is spilled or there is a breach in the tank. The speed at which heavy goods vehicles travel is important to road safety, especially when they carry substances which, if they spill out of their containers or cylinders, can affect a wider group than the drivers on the motorway at the time.

Mr. Hargreaves: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point entirely. It speaks for itself and requires no further comment from me. I hope that that matter can be dealt with in Committee.
I have one final, small point to make about random breath testing. Having heard what a number of colleagues have said today, and having discussed the matter with a number of constituents and people in Birmingham generally, in all honesty I must point out that some people are suspicious of random breath testing. Although we all understand the right and proper motive for its introduction, it may well be misunderstood outside, and it may be counter-productive to the police forces. If we consider such a measure, and if my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State admits to its being included in the scope of the Bill for consideration at a later stage, I nevertheless urge colleagues to think carefully and to consult their local police forces before taking too high and moral a view before the public is ready for it.

Mr. Terry Lewis: I intend to make only a short speech and to refer only to part I of the Bill. The Secretary of State said that the purpose of the Bill is to save lives. I agree with much of what is in the Bill and many of my hon. Friends have also expressed their agreement. I am one of those—perhaps—incautious people who travel more than 20,000 miles a year on the motorways. I travelled down the M1 and M6 today from Lancashire. Driving down, I saw things that I have seen at normal times but which appeared worse as today is abnormal because some of the results of the recent bad weather are still evident.
I agree with the new definition of "dangerous driving", but should like to draw the Secretary of State's attention to some of the things that should be further considered in Committee. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve on the Committee will table amendments about some of the things that I shall mention.
As I have said, today was one occasion when it was more dangerous than usual to see some of the things on the motorway that give me heart murmurs while I am driving. Today I witnessed tailgating, an offence which should be punished hard. Even if it only intimidates the driver in front, it could cause a small shunt, but, at the worst, the driver in front could panic, run into some obstruction and put on his brakes. He will not have a snowball in hell's chance even of surviving the crash. As a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, I regret to say that some of my colleagues who drive are culpable. However, some employers put pressure on drivers in terms of time, weight, unfit wagons and other matters which have been mentioned today. They are as culpable as the driver behind the wheel. Some of us are surprised that when trade unions break the law they quickly have their funds sequestered, but when employers break the law in ways such as I have suggested, there is a marked reluctance by the courts, the police and the Crown prosecution service to do anything about it.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of speeding coaches on motorways is a serious one? Is he aware that the timetables for some coach routes between London and other places make it impossible for coaches to make the journey without consistently breaking the speed limit on the entire motorway part of the journey? Should not something be done to companies that force drivers into trying to keep to those timetables?

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was coming to coaches, which are one of the main culprits of the motorway offences to which I have briefly referred.
I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State's contention that new or existing technology should be used to detect offenders. Today we have discussed briefly the use of cameras to detect red light jumping and speeding. I suggest that the Standing Committee should discuss the possibility of using cameras to detect and prosecute tailgaters and those who overtake on the inside. Some drivers do not overtake only once on the inside. Often, particularly on the M1, one can see them overtake on the inside, on the outside again and tear off into the night. One Conservative Member mentioned car telephone users. I saw some today. We came through the worst of the weather in Birmingham where there was snow on the ground in the fast lane—which we parochially call the outside lane—and as soon as we reached a stretch where the weather had bucked up and it was dry and reasonable to drive at 60 or 70 mph, drivers were using mobile telephones. I saw not only one but about four of them with telephones clutched to their ears as soon as they hit a stretch of open road.
The worst thing that I saw today was a small hatchback car with three youngsters between the back seat and the tailgate. That is criminal in anyone's language and that is the sort of thing that I would like to see detected by photographic equipment. I should be the first to argue that it is a reasonable way to bring to prosecution people who put children in such danger.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has not grasped the nettle on random breath tests. On January 22 I shall test the mood of the House on random breath testing in a ten-minute Bill. I shall propose the introduction of random breath testing. I am confident that


it has the overwhelming support of our constituents. I hope to test the mood of the House before the Bill reaches Committee.
On the subject of drinking and driving, I cannot resist referring to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He said that lemonade cost 35p for a small bottle.

Mr. McCartney: Eighty-five pence.

Mr. Lewis: Even worse. Publicans and brewers—I suppose that the publicans are the victims of the brewers —are even more culpable when it comes to the cost of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers. I drink such beers from time to time. In many of the pubs that I use the price is almost double that of ordinary beer. There can be a temptation to the weak-willed motorist, who feels that he is being ripped off, to drink when he should not and then drive his car. Such pricing positively encourages people to consume too much alcohol and then to drive a motor vehicle.
The Bill is defective in some small respects, but I believe that some safety measures could be added to it without much difficulty. For example, I consider that coaches should be banned from the third lanes of our motorways. There is no reason why a 42-seat coach should use a lane that is barred to heavy goods vehicles. There is no reason why 42 passengers should be put at risk in that way. I hope that the Secretary of State will take up that suggestion.
I suggest that there should be some bad-weather containment of HGVs. In the midlands, there was ice and snow on the third lane today and, effectively, it was blocked off. The HGVs were nose to tail on the centre lane. Private motor cars and motor cyclists were being driven or ridden into the spaces between the lorries, which were far too small to enable that to be done safely. The highway code tells us that even when travelling at slow speeds we should allow a space between us and the car in front that is sufficient for another vehicle to enter safely. That was not being done today. In severe weather conditions, we should confine HGVs to the inside lane.
Where there have been debates on EC regulations, for example, I have talked about the spray from HGVs when the roads are wet. It is monstrous that we allow them to fog off sections of the motorway with spray. As some HGVs have well designed and superbly constructed anti-spray equipment, why cannot all HGVs be fitted with it? Why cannot manufacturers be forced to include it in the specification of their products? That should be done. If we have to go beyond the demands of EC legislation, so be it. That is what Parliament is supposed to be about and that is what it should be about. We should insist on proper anti-spray equipment.
I understood that anti-jackknife equipment was fitted as standard on all articulated HGVs. During the weekend, however, I saw at least three such vehicles that had jackknifed on one or other of our motorways. They were almost brand new. If anti-jackknife equipment is available, it should be fitted to all articulated vehicles. I thought that it was, though I may have been mistaken. I plead ignorance.

Mr. McCartney: What about caravans?

Mr. Lewis: I do not want to talk about caravans. I could bore the House all night with what I think about the towing of caravans.
The cause of many serious non-motorway accidents lies with the mismanagement of traffic in urban areas. It is as simple as that. I am afraid that the motor car has taken over the thought processes of many individuals and that problem should be tackled. Some people in my constituency, when confronted by double yellow lines, park their vehicles on the pavement—to blazes with anyone who is blind or otherwise disabled, and children going to and from school. Such people should be subjected to serious collar feeling by the police. They should be banned from driving, as that behaviour is ludicrous. If that is how they behave when their vehicles are stationary, heaven knows what they do when driving. The practice of parking vehicles opposite road junctions should also be subject to rigid policing. That practice is endemic in my constituency and many others.
The Bill, like the curate's egg, is good in parts. I hope that the Secretary of State has listened to this well-ordered debate and will act before the Bill goes into Committee on some of the suggestions made.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I warmly welcome the Bill. It is high time that we enshrined into law the North report and I am pleased that a new offence of dangerous driving will replace that of reckless driving. It is also good to put on the statute book the new offence of causing death through careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. A number of other new offences, including the punishment of vandals who put road users at risk, are also welcome.
I want to concentrate on random breath testing, already referred to by many colleagues, and the greater safety of those on the road as they approach school.
The chilling statistic before the House is that, over the Christmas period, 750 people will die or be injured on our roads as a result of drink. That is a stark statistic that can only be welcome to the undertakers. I do not want to return to the House for another Christmas without acting upon that. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has moved from the vastness of Scotland to transport and its associated issues and I hope that he takes into account the need for random breath testing. I am surprised that it is not included in the Bill—perhaps that was a drafting error. If my right hon. and learned Friend accepts the mood of the House, that proposal will be included.
In 1988, one in six road deaths in Britain occurred in an accident where drink-driving was involved. In the same year, 840 people were killed and 22,000 injured on the roads and drink-driving was a factor in those accidents. If the average fine is £180 only, it is not surprising that many drivers, particularly youngsters with high disposable incomes, are prepared to take a risk. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has already referred to the sad cases where people were prepared to take such a risk. The victims of those accidents are unable to bear witness to their survival—they are history.
Random breath testing is used in some countries, including Australia, where the police have the power to set up road blocks and to breathalyse all or a fixed sample of


those passing through. I understand that in New South Wales, fatal road accidents have fallen by 28 per cent. since that procedure was introduced.
When my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic winds up, will he say whether, during the Bill's passage, there can be an experiment in west, north and south Yorkshire and Humberside over the next few months to see whether random breath testing would have a major effect? To his great credit, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire has taken the matter on board, but his lead has not been followed by the other chief constables. The effectiveness of such a measure could be tested while this legislation passes through the House and the other place.
Leaving on one side the important matter of random breath testing, I refer to another great issue, the safety of our young people on the roads as they go to and from school. I praise the recently launched campaign of the Yorkshire Evening Press for safer roads. During the Bill's passage we should consider the possibility of having white lines across the road, with the spaces between them diminishing the nearer they come to a school. Secondly, we should have clearer warning notices starting about a quarter of a mile before a school, in addition to the current signs that are sited close to a school entrance, possibly with flashing lights as well. I understand from the county surveyor of North Yorkshire county council that it is not within his present powers to implement such proposals —he would need a statute or the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State before he could make such moves.
Thirdly, we could have speed humps on the road as a school entrance is approached. That, above all, would stop the speedy driver as he moves towards a school entrance. Only in that way will we substantially reduce the tragic deaths and accidents that take place around schools.
Those are three practical measures that should be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that they would have all-party support. There is no question of delay. If he gives even a hint of the possibility of such experimentation, he will be the parliamentary saviour of this Christmas.

Mr. Roger Gale: I have listened to every minute of the debate, particularly all the arguments surrounding random breath testing and, setting aside the obvious strength of feeling that has come through, three clear facts have become apparent. First, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, police already have wide powers. Secondly, the police do not use those powers often and, when they do, they do not use them in a uniform fashion. Thirdly, the public are unaware of those powers.
Whatever the outcome of the Secretary of State's deliberations, I ask him to tell the House tonight, or as soon as possible, that the powers that the police already have will be used. Will he ask the Home Secretary to ask the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that procedures are standardised so that there is a uniform pattern nationwide? Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek to use all his powers to ensure that the public understand the powers that the police already have? Those

three steps can be taken in time to save lives this Christmas, irrespective of any other legislation that may be passed.
I hope that this will not become the "Random Breath Test Bill", not because that subject is not important or worthy of debate, but because there is so much else that is important. I applaud all the measures contained in part I of the Bill and simply ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider two further matters of amendment. First, there was a time when the uninsured driver was liable to a custodial sentence which was abolished in the belief that imprisonment was a draconian measure for an uninsured driver. At that time, that decision was probably correct. However, the result of that decision has been to prevent magistrates from using the community service sentence —itself dependent on a custodial sentence—against uninsured drivers. That is a source of considerable concern, and sometimes of hardship, to the victims of the uninsured. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend carefully to consider reintroducing that penalty. Only in extreme cases would imprisonment be used, but it would also open up to magistrates other avenues of punishment.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also consider imposing more severe fines for failing to register vehicles. It is clear that the courts often have difficulty in identifying vehicle ownership, and that in itself causes problems.
Part III does not yet exist, but I hope that it will by the time that the Bill has completed its Committee stage. Part II lays great emphasis on traffic management in London and I should like to see the Bill lay equal emphasis on traffic management outside London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and I will shortly be approaching my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in connection with improvements to the A253, which serves both Kent international airport and Fort Ramsgate. The A253 and other roads like it are important, because the heart of the county of Kent is being torn out by heavy lorries using as rat runs roads through rural villages that are not suited to them. The villages are being destroyed, and I urge my right hon. and learned Friend carefully to examine the general powers that already apply to London traffic to see whether they could apply to rural villages. It is possible, for example, to introduce sleeping policemen and highway-narrowing schemes to side roads but not to through roads. I ask only of my right hon. and learned Friend that he examines those existing powers, to ascertain whether any of them can be included in the Bill, to help preserve our rural villages from being destroyed.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am very glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his place at this late hour. The general powers in the Bill that he has inherited are very welcome, and it is right that the media have devoted considerable attention to changes to deal with drink-driving, which remains a scourge that demands our attention wherever effective measures can be devised to combat it.
The North report drew attention to the difficulty of proving reckless driving, and it is proper to replace the existing offence by that of dangerous driving and of causing death through careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. There is widespread public


belief that those who have caused death through careless driving when unfit to drive have been dealt with too leniently. The law should rightly be concerned with the consequences of people's actions as well as the circumstances leading to the Commission of the offence.
The Government have struck the right balance in respect of measures to deter drink-driving. Those who make their priority the introduction of random testing and greater police powers rarely seem to consider that the most effective change—that in public attitudes—has been implemented without any such measures. Drink driving is the biggest single cause of road accidents, but due partly to the Government's approach and to other factors, the number of people driving after drinking has almost halved in the past 10 years, with a commensurate reduction in associated casualties. That it is now regarded as much more socially acceptable for drivers not to take alcohol, and to respond when asked to have another drink, "No thank you, I'm driving," is a dramatic and welcome change by any standard.
Some hon. Members have cited the New South Wales example, where random testing is claimed to have reduced drink-driving by 30 per cent.—but with the voluntary assistance of brewers and others, Britain has achieved a much more radical result. It is futile to imagine that random testing could have the same effect in this country, where—thanks to an alternative, and more successful, approach—we have achieved better results.
In 1978, 42 per cent. of breath tests were positive, but by 1989 the figure had fallen to 18 per cent. That difference is only partly accounted for by the much larger number of tests now made. Random tests are much less productive than the targeted tests carried out at present. Those who continually call for random tests run the risk of signalling to potential drink-drivers that they are unlikely to be stopped and tested when the message should be just the opposite.
Certainly, new technology can deter bad driving, but we should be cautious about legislative changes of the kind proposed. Although I fully support them, it is also worth bearing in mind that, where automatic cameras are used, it will not usually be possible to apprehend the driver responsible for the alleged offence immediately. Under the provisions of the Bill, the company which owns the vehicle may be liable if it does not provide information as to the driver of the vehicle at the time the alleged offence was committed.
There is concern about the use of photography. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), while welcoming the Government's White Paper, said that
the further extension, through the use of cameras of the principle that a motorist or a keeper of a motor vehicle can be found guilty of an offence without the same burden of proof that would be required to find him guilty of any other form of offence is becoming a little worrying".—[Offcial Report, 7 February 1989; Vol. 146, column 804.]
In response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the then Secretary of State, agreed that there was bound to be controversy and said that the House would wish to debate the matter at length. I believe that that should be the case.
Sending photographs of an individual to that person's employer, or to the keeper of the car, who may be the

person's husband or wife, carries more general risks to civil liberty. The fact that an individual can be shown to have been at a particular location at a particular time, perhaps accompanied by persons whose identity he or she would wish to keep private, should not be the concern of an agency of the state. Rightly or wrongly, some people will view such devices as spy cameras. We should be a little cautious before we agree that they can be used on a widespread basis, because their impact may be more broadly felt than we imagine. The objective of reducing casualties by improving the standard of driving, which is a good one, may not always justify the means.
The Government have given signs that they are sympathetic to some of the provisions in the Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill, which I brought forward in the last Session with the support of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and the Automobile Association. Most accidents are caused by bad driving, but the use of unroadworthy vehicles by bad drivers can be a fatal combination. Indeed, in some cases innocent purchasers of second-hand cars may unwittingly find themselves in possession of a lethal weapon. I hope that the Government will look favourably upon amendments to make the lives of second-hand car cowboys more unpleasant by strengthening the hand of those who seek to protect purchasers.
I greatly welcome the tougher vehicle test recently announced by the Government, which will cover exhaust emissions, thus bringing considerable environmental benefits. I am glad that that represents no threat to classic cars—a matter of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight)—and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State may be able to reassure him on that.
The Bill is an important measure. For the first time in my 11 years in the House, a major Bill has been devoted solely to road traffic. It will provide a valuable opportunity to debate issues which may literally be matters of life and death. I hope that that opportunity will be put to good use.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I join in the welcome to the new Secretary of State. I am delighted that he is still in the House at almost quarter past midnight. I hope that the reform of the House, which many hon. Members are pressing for, will soon make it unnecessary for him, or for any of us, to be here at this ungodly hour.
The debate has been wide ranging. Part I of the Bill has received widespread support for its inclusions, and a fair measure of criticism for its omissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) explained the extent of the Opposition's support for the Bill and the additions that we shall press for in Committee.
The compelling arguments for measures to improve road safety were well rehearsed in our debates on 16 November and I do not need to reiterate them now. It is the fervent hope of all hon. Members that the new measures will reduce the appalling toll of accidents on our roads.
Today, as on every other day, we can expect about 15 people to have lost their lives and 170 to have been seriously injured. In due course—as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) so graphically pointed out—the families of some of those killed will suffer further grief and anger on finding that the drivers


responsible have received inappropriately light sentences. The creation of offences of careless and dangerous driving, and of attendant penalties, will be widely welcomed, although we shall want to examine very closely the details of the cases raised by my hon. Friend and consider whether it is impossible to strengthen the Bill further in the way that he proposed.
We are, in any event, anxious about the effectiveness of the provisions applying to the new offences if more is not done to alter driver behaviour. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) argued in his powerful speech, increased penalties alone are not certain to have a positive effect. He and we have suggested that the introduction of random testing would act as a further deterrent to drink-driving. Whatever the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) may say about the progress made to date—and we all commend everyone involved in that progress—there is room for further improvement; that is why we advocate standardised random testing. Furthermore, we believe that the introduction of such testing could have a wider impact on driver behaviour and would serve as a useful complement to the new offences proposed in the Bill.
We shall continue to urge the Government to introduce random testing, and will of course explore the matter further in Committee. If the new broom—the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—is looking for a popular cause, he need look no further: as his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is joint chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, reminded him tonight, the report by the transport and road research laboratory found that 77 per cent. of those interviewed supported random breath testing.
As we have heard repeatedly tonight, the Bill consists of two distinct parts, and it falls to me to deal with part II. Like the New Roads and Street Works Bill introduced in the other place, this Bill is a combination of long-overdue and sensible measures—dealing, in this case, with road safety—and some half-baked ideas advanced by Ministers who lack the courage to accept the need for strategic transport planning.
We regard it as mischievous of the Government to tack on to the relatively uncontentious and important part I their extremely controversial plans for London. So anxious are they to be seen doing something in London that they are starting the red routes pilot project on 7 January, before we have had any opportunity to explore the proposals in Committee. Indecent haste has been the hallmark of their proposals.
Just a year ago, the Department of Transport told local authorities that it foresaw
few benefits and many difficulties
resulting from the red routes, yet six weeks later the proposal was published in "Traffic in London". Today, the Secretary of State argued that red routes would transform London's appalling traffic problem. The principal rationale is the need to get traffic moving more freely—a worthwhile objective in itself, but one which cannot be advanced without a critical analysis of all the factors that have led to London's acute road congestion and of the likely impact on that congestion of continuing trends in car use. It is here that the Government find themselves with irreconcilable objectives.
In "Traffic in London", the Government say:

people's aspirations to own and use a car should not be artificially constrained".
However, in June this year a letter from the transportation unit of the Department of the Environment stated that it recognised
the need to reduce traffic levels where appropriate for environmental and other reasons … there is therefore no question of providing for all the potential demand".
The red route proposals encapsulate the Government's muddled thinking. They are designed to speed people through—surely the most potent invitation to the reluctant motorist to abandon the awful tube or the appalling rail service and drive to work instead. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) clearly recognised that danger in his speech. He cautioned me not to make party political mischief out of the issue, but I have to say to him that that is not our choice. Labour's policy on traffic restraint is absolutely clear and to the point. It coincides with the broadest possible political consensus in London.
The red routes will do nothing to reduce the volume of traffic coming into central London. Yet again, the Government offer a piecemeal approach that, while appearing to solve some problems, will exacerbate others, as has been set out very clearly in the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
London needs a comprehensive strategy, designed of course to reduce congestion but also to provide for commercial transport needs and deliveries, for good quality, affordable public transport and for a cleaner, safer environment. Red routes will not deliver that strategy to London. In this capital city we are already at crisis point, yet the Government continue to predict an increase in private car use while allowing public transport to reach an all-time low.
The new Secretary of State for Transport would do well to remember the ignominious demise of the London assessment studies. They were defeated overwhelmingly by the arguments on this side of the House and by the implacable opposition of the residents in the affected neighbourhoods. Londoners decisively rejected road building in favour of public transport. I draw to the Secretary of State's attention the recent report of the Consumers Association, which found a large measure of public support for traffic restraint and public transport provision.
The Secretary of State emphasised that red routes will benefit buses. Of course we welcome any action that improves bus services. However, he could do so much more were it not for the Government's ideological commitment to deregulation and privatisation. Bus riding in London continues to fall and bus services throughout the capital continue to deteriorate. The stringent enforcement of parking restrictions would undoubtedly help bus flows, which we should welcome. We should also welcome similar restrictions throughout London as a whole.
The pilot plan envisages the creation of additional bus lanes. Again, that is to be welcomed. However, a comprehensive network of bus lanes that are properly and effectively policed is needed for the whole of London. More priority ought to be given to buses at traffic lights. It is not clear to us whether the proposed measures will include that priority, which technically it would be possible to implement.
The contradictions in Government thinking are further illustrated by their attitude towards local authorities that are affected by the pilot scheme and towards traffic-calming measures and measures to assist cyclists and pedestrians that they are supposed to encompass. The latter are welcomed by the boroughs and residents alike, yet the Government insist on painting the red lines before any other measures can be put in place. Their rationale for proceeding in this way escapes me. I trust that the Minister for Roads and Traffic will provide an explanation when he winds up the debate.
As the Secretary of State said, parking enforcement is vital in London. He told us that every day some 200,000 parking offences are committed in this city. I am told that 149 of the 150 offenders go free. It has been estimated that increased enforcement could reduce illegal parking by almost a half, with a consequent dramatic effect on congestion.
Parking enforcement is in the hands of three agencies —the police, traffic wardens and local authorities. The result is wholly unsatisfactory. This year, fewer fixed penalty notices have been issued than in 1989. The police have enough to do in fighting serious crime; the traffic warden service is severely understaffed; and local authorities have limited powers of enforcement. The Government are clearly not serious about the problem. There is a need for a new and streamlined system.
The Bill goes some way to tackling the problem. It transfers sole responsibility for permitted parking to the boroughs. In addition, the boroughs will be able to remove and clamp vehicles, which is welcome, but illegal parking will still be enforced by traffic wardens. In any one area, therefore, there will be two enforcement agencies. Not only will there be duplication of effort, but the state of the traffic warden service must raise serious doubts about whether the yellow lines will be effectively policed if the red routes become the priority for traffic wardens. I suggest that it makes more sense to give boroughs all the parking enforcement responsibility for local roads and we shall certainly table amendments in Committee to that effect.
There is also the question of the level of fines that the Secretary of State intends to set for the red routes. Will the Minister give his ideas on that matter?
Finally, we come to the proposed traffic director for London—the one-man quango with draconian powers. Once again, when London is crying out for a strategic authority to oversee London's transport planning, we have yet another body with powers to tinker with bits of the system. His powers of imposition will be considerable, but his duties to consult will be non-existent. We give notice to our intention to table amendments in Committee to make the traffic director more accountable to the people whom he is to serve. Furthermore, we shall oppose the provision for fining local authorities that do not comply with his plans.
We do not intend to press the Bill to a vote, because we can support many of its measures and are anxious to make progress on its road safety measures with due diligence. I give notice, however, on behalf of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies and my colleagues in the Association of London Authorities, that we regard the red route proposals not only as flawed but as a totally inadequate response to the transport chaos of our capital

city. We shall seek to amend the Bill in Committee and, once in government, we shall legislate for the elected strategic authority that London needs. We shall provide the means by which an integrated public transport system can be developed to secure the interests of the people of London, of its economy and of its environment.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is difficult to remember a more constructive or better humoured debate on the Second Reading of a major Bill. If I detect the mood of the House correctly, it is to delay no further in giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
I thank hon. Members who participated in the debate and showed their overwhelming support for the aim of the Bill—to assist in reducing road casualties and countering congestion, particularly in London. Although there have been disagreements, they have been about the means of attaining the objectives rather than the objectives themselves.
Many hon. Members spoke of the omission from the Bill of any reference to random breath testing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, delivered a forceful speech full of conviction on that point. So forceful was his delivery that those who heard it could never have suspected that this was his first day back after a bout of pneumonia. We are delighted to have him with us.
I remind the House that the police have adequate powers to order roadside breath tests. It is lawful for a police officer in uniform acting in the execution of his duty to require the driver of any vehicle on a road to stop. A police officer who stops a vehicle on a road with the purpose of investigating whether its driver has alcohol in his body is acting in the execution of his duty. It is therefore lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random for that purpose, provided that there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct on the part of the officer. It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require a driver who has been stopped in such circumstances to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, provided that the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body.
I believe that the existing powers are sufficient. Indeed, they have permitted a tripling in the number of breath tests over the past decade. Last December alone, there were over 111,000 screening breath tests. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and others who want to give the police more powers: to what end? Do we really want police officers to spend their time giving breath tests to motorists whom they do not suspect of having alcohol in their bodies? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)—surely a targeted approach is a better approach. Last December, 91 per cent. of all those who had screening breath tests produced negative results. Surely that bears out the effectiveness of the existing powers as a deterrent.

Mr. McCartney: rose——

Mr. Chope: I have devoted almost all my concluding remarks to that issue because it was debated at greatest length.
As a former Secretary of State for Transport, it must be a great pleasure for my right hon. Friend the Member for


Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) to see the continuing beneficial impact of his radical period of tenure in the Department, particularly in terms of deregulation of long-distance coaches and the privatisation of the National Freight Corporation. I am sure that he is right in saying that the public is again in a receptive mood for further radical transport policies. I assure the House that, under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State, people will not be disappointed.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Chope: I shall not give way because I have little time left.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was right to emphasise the way in which enforcement of road traffic law has not kept pace with traffic growth and new technology. Our estimate is that, when clause 19 is fully implemented, some 2 million extra offences will be detected and subject to prosecution on fixed penalty tickets, which will mean that the certainty of detection will be much greater. That is the greatest deterrent. In turn, that will lead to a dramatic improvement in road safety.
Let us remember that the authorities in Paris have introduced the axes rouges, with much more draconian powers than we seek from the House. Already, the immediate effects of the 17 miles where the axes rouges have been introduced in Paris are that journey times are down by 15 to 20 per cent. and the average speed in the central area has increased from 6 to 12 mph. That shows that we are on the right lines in proposing red routes for London.
The Bill contains important measures to reduce road casualties and to counter congestion and traffic pollution. It deserves the support of the whole——

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that there was a 10 o'clock business motion, which means that debate on the Bill can continue until any hour, even though it is opposed, and that the Minister is deliberately seeking not to answer the points raised in the debate concerning the appointment of a traffic Commissioner for London?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The second point is a matter for the Minister, not the Chair. On the first point, the hon. Member is correct in saying that there was a 10 o'clock motion and therefore the debate is open-ended.

Mr. Chope: I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to further constructive debate in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for the payment of grants to the Traffic Director for London,
(b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees), if European Community Document No. 9601/90 relating to non-standard work is recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation for further consideration, the said document shall not stand referred to any European Standing Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION

That the draft Education Support Grants Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Orders of the Day — Sedgley

Mr. David Sumberg: I beg leave to present a petition, signed by nearly 1,000 people in the Sedgley part of my constituency, which deals with the proposal by the neighbouring Manchester city council to incorporate part of Sedgley within its boundaries.
The petition rejects Manchester city council's proposals and my constituents have told me in no uncertain terms that they do not wish to live under a left-wing Labour council whose reputation for high charges and abysmal service is legendary. I support my constituents without reservation and will do everything in my power to resist this extraordinary takeover bid by Labour Manchester.
The petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to take note of the proposal by Manchester City Council and shall reject that proposal and ensure that those parts of Sedgley in Prestwich that are covered by it shall remain with the Metropolitan Borough of Bury and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Druridge Bay (Sand Extraction)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: The title of the debate suggests that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and I should pack our buckets and spades for a seaside outing. If buckets and spades were all that there was to it, we would not have a problem. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the removal of sand on a much larger scale.
Druridge bay consists of over six miles of magnificent Northumberland countryside—one continuous beach backed by dunes. Part of the bay is owned by the National Trust and associated with it are four nature reserves, giving protection to rare species of birds and vegetation. There is also a designated site of special scientific interest at Cresswell ponds.
During the summer months and at weekends the area is very popular with people from Tyneside, but it is so large that it can absorb quite a large number of people without losing any of its beauty or any of the sense of remoteness and release that it gives. It cannot so readily absorb or cope with industrial threats, however. One—the plan to build a nuclear power station, against which many of us have been campaigning for over a decade—has receded, along with the rest of the Government's nuclear power programme. I hope that that proposal never reappears; if it does, it will be bitterly contested.
The threat with which we are concerned tonight, however, is that of the erosion of the sand, made worse by industrial sand extraction. Sand has been extracted for many years from the dunes and foreshore—originally it was in very small quantities. Planning permissions were refused for the main areas of activity—Hemscott hill and Blakemoor burn—in 1959 and 1964 respectively. The planning authority took the view that industrial sand extraction on a significant scale should not take place at either of those locations. Then, Ministers of Housing and Local Government—one Conservative and one Labour —gave permission on appeal for both the sites, in 1960 and in 1966 respectively. Since those dates, the areas have been worked—first, by a local builder and since 1982 by Northern Aggregates, a subsidiary of RMC Ltd.
The sand extraction is undertaken by one mechanical shovel, which, since the beginning of 1988, has operated only on the smaller of the two sites—Blakemoor burn— where sand is dug out from the foreshore. On the larger site—Hemscott hill—sand may be dug from the foreshore or from the dunes and the existing permission allows for the complete removal of the dunes along a 1,500 yd stretch of coastline. There are no restrictions on the hours of working or on the number of wagons that can be used to take away the sand. Approximately 40,000 tonnes of sand is taken each year. In 1960, when it all started, only 14,000 tonnes were taken. There is no quantity limit and it is estimated that over 1 million tonnes have been extracted in that way.
It is important to note that the planning permissions were granted on appeal and not by the local authorities in the first place. I do not believe that permission for sand extraction on that scale would have been granted today by the present Minister or any recent Minister. The extraction appears not to have been made subject even to some of the

conditions envisaged by the inspectors at the two inquiries. The inspector recommended in 1960 that the appeal should be allowed and he suggested that planning permission should be given for periods of
three and four years at a time so that sea encroachment and land drainage might be kept under review.
As regards the foreshore, the Minister sees no reason why it should not be worked to a limited extent.
The inspector's report also stated:
The Minister doubts whether it is practicable to limit annual production for the area to a fixed amount … The Minister does not think it necessary to limit any permission to a term of years.
The inspector's report was not even borne out in the Minister's decision which did not impose the kind of restrictions that the inspector seemed to envisage.
In 1965 the inspector referred to allowing the appeal and granting permission
to the extent and subject to such conditions as are necessary to ensure that the cleaning is on a scale and in a similar manner to that which was carried out before the appellant commenced work on the site.
However, the conditions set that year do not bear that out. They are not sufficient to limit the extraction of sand to the level that was going on before 1960 or 1965.
I do not believe that permission for extraction would have been granted today. Even if it were, it would be subject to the kind of conditions that the inspectors envisaged back in the 1960s, but which were not applied. One of the conditions was that one small mechanical shovel should be used. Of course, that term now extends to quite a modern piece of equipment that has three times the capacity of the machine used in 1960.
We should also bear it in mind that since then the Cresswell pond site has been declared a site of special scientific interest. However, because of the planning permission, it could not be extended so that its limitations covered the whole area, as that would have made the declaration retrospective and outwith the terms of the SSSI legislation.
So far as I know, nothing like this is tolerated elsewhere on anything like this scale. The county council has inquired around the country and has found that in almost all comparable cases permissions were more restricted and in many cases had been brought to an end. The planning permissions to which I have referred effectively last until 2042. They have more than 50 years to go. People in the area are deeply concerned about what is happening and about seeing their beach removed in that way.
Much of the concern stems from the fear of significant erosion. Research undertaken in 1970 by Professor Clayton of the University of East Anglia and research undertaken in 1985 and 1986 by Babtie, Shaw and Morton for Castle Morpeth borough council showed that the effects of sand removal coupled with coal mining subsidence affecting some parts of the bay could lead to a danger of inundation by the sea. The Babtie, Shaw and Morton report stated:
Sea encroachment would flood and contaminate large areas of agricultural and amentity land, together with the C110 Cresswell to Druridge road.
That road is flooded today. The area that has been cut away was flooded—the sea broke into it during the stormy weather of the past weekend.
The former warden for the Northumberland wildlife trust of the area around Druridge bay said that, at the present rate, within 20 years we will not have any sand dunes, and that if one takes sand from one point, the sand


moves to make the same shape, and the result is erosion all along the bay. That point by Mr. Scott explains how it is that, although the sand keeps replacing itself at the point from which it is being extracted, the process attracts sand to fill the gap from other parts of the bay where the beach is being eroded. All those who have carried out any research or study of the matter are convinced that serious erosion of the beach will continue and that damage to the dunes is threatened. Sand extraction affects the whole bay and there are signs of rapid erosion at the north end.
Work on the dunes could be resumed within the planning permission at any time. It is not going on at the moment, but further extraction from the dunes—effectively levelling the dunes—could be resumed at any time and disastrous consequences could follow.
We all know that changing meteorological patterns and global warming are expected to result in an increase in tide levels in the North sea, which would further threaten the dunes. That is now accepted wisdom—the former Prime Minister herself referred to it. Clearly, it is extremely worrying for extraction to continue against that threat. The National Trust is very concerned about the danger to its own property in the part of the bay that it safeguards. The Northumberland wildlife trust is concerned, and its concern is shared by local residents, by Castle Morpeth borough council and by Northumberland county council.
What is it open to the authorities to do? Town and country planning legislation could allow the local planning authority and Northumberland county council to revoke or modify the two planning permissions, but compensa-tion would be required for the loss of mineral reserves. That could be on a massive scale. The company has talked about a six-figure sum. The resource is not finite, unlike a quarry, in which case one could point to a time when it will be worked out and, therefore, there is a limit to compensation. Because sand keeps reappearing from other parts of the bay, there is no limit of time or quantity and, therefore, potentially a large sum in compensation.
In December 1989 the then Secretary of State for the Environment stated that section 276 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which has since been superseded, enabled him to revoke a planning permission
if the original decision is judged to be grossly wrong, so that damage is likely to be done to the wider public interest."—[Official Report, 20 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 327.]
Northumberland county council's view is that it might be appropriate to use that power for a planning permission that is clearly outdated and does not even conform to the inspector's initial proposals to safeguard the two sites in question.
In a letter to me in June the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) said that he was not prepared to use that power and that, in any event, compensation would have to be paid by Northumberland county council. I ask the Minister to consider how serious it would be if such a large sum had to be met by the poll tax payers of the county of Northumberland, unaided. The county council would quickly exceed its capping limit if it were to undertake a payment on that scale. It is an unreasonable demand.
At the same time, the Castle Morpeth borough council, in conjunction with its consulting engineers, is considering the possibility of taking action under the coastal protection legislation. Precedents for that are not encouraging. The legislation is not particularly well

drafted. There are only two previous cases in which local authorities have successfully applied for such orders in remotely comparable circumstances.
Other forms of campaigning are going on to deal with the problem. Local people are campaigning vigorously, and the Druridge bay campaign, which was originally set up to campaign against a nuclear power station, is now campaigning to secure assurances from local building firms that they will not use sand taken from the site. Two local firms have given indications that they will take that line. The well-known north-east Bowey construction group has said that it will not use sand from the site, and the firm of George Tower of Blyth has said that it will not do so. I hope that the campaign will widen and that many more firms will take advantage of it, but I do not think that that will solve the problem.
It is worth remembering that Northumberland has 16·8 years' supply of permitted sand and gravel extraction within the area and a further 1·8 million tonnes has just been added by a further permission. There is no question of Northumberland in any way failing in its duty to ensure that the construction industry has access within that area to sufficient supplies for the years to come. It has already exceeded the recommended 10-year amount of extracted sand and gravel that it is supposed to allow.
In these circumstances, I ask the Minister to think again about the Department's position. It is not fair to put the entire bill for ending this state of affairs on local community charge payers. In any case, it is not clear that huge compensation is appropriate in this instance. Why should this firm have rights to dig out the beach without any limit on time or quantity? It has already had a good run. This has been a nice little earner, which has been perfectly legal and above board, and which has cost the firm only whatever sum it paid originally and the limited cost of carrying out the extraction and carting the sand away. It cannot be said to be under any great threat if it is considered that the extraction should end without a huge sum being paid in compensation.
However, if compensation is to be paid, why should it be paid solely by the community? Central Government caused the problem by overruling local knowledge and local decisions. I recognise that it was not the present Government, but it was central Government, and the responsibility cannot be left on the shoulders of the local community.
I do not expect the Minister to brandish a wholly new solution to the problem tonight, but I urge him to get his officials to look again at it, to visit the site and to begin discussions with the local authorities involved to find a way to end this uncontrolled and unlimited destruction of the local environment, the cost of which should not fall wholly on the local community, which tried hard to stop this happening in the first place and is therefore entitled to some help from central Government in bringing the problem to an end.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has explained his concerns about this issue with characteristic eloquence and reasonableness and I congratulate him on bringing the subject before the House. I know that his interest in this


case is not new as he wrote about it earlier this year to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) when he was Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to have a constituency that is noted for its attractive landscape, including much of its coastline. He speaks of it with justifiable pride and enthusiasm. It is also endowed with a number of important minerals, including coal, sand and gravel. Because of that, it is not surprising that there are concerns arising from the desire to protect and enhance the environment. From time to time, those concerns may appear to conflict with the need to exploit the mineral resources for the benefit of the nation.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I first briefly outlined the Government's policy on the provision of aggregates, of which sand and gravel form an important element. For our economy to function properly, we need a steady and varied supply of minerals. It is Government policy that the construction industry continues to receive that supply at the best balance of social, economic and environmental cost. In the past few years, there has been extensive consultation with the industry and with minerals planning authorities on the preparation of new policy guidance. That guidance is contained in a series of minerals planning guidance notes, seven of which have so far been issued.
The guidance sets out the Government's overall policy and the matters to be taken into account when planning applications are submitted and considered. It also sets out matters to be included in development plans and gives guidance about reclamation and, importantly for the matter before the House, about the review to be undertaken by minerals planning authorities of existing mineral workings. I shall return to that in a moment.
Minerals deposits are not evenly distributed. They can be worked only where they can be found. It is a fact that good mineral deposits are frequently found in areas of attractive landscape, or in areas which, for some other reason, are environmentally sensitive. That can lead to disagreements about whether working should be permitted or, where it is already taking place, whether it should be allowed to continue. In the majority of cases, it is for the minerals planning authority, which is in the best position to judge, to decide on how the best balance of supply against environmental cost can be struck.
I now refer to the importance that the Government attach to the environment in the assessment that has to be made in considering the acceptability of minerals working. Most minerals working causes some environmental disturbance. Most people are aware of the impact that mineral extraction has had and can have on the landscape and on a variety of local features and naturally occurring processes and activities. Although some minerals working may be a relatively short-term activity, in other cases it can last much longer—perhaps for several decades, as in the case that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Environmental concerns are increasing in response to both new planning applications for minerals working and existing activity that may have been authorised, as in this case, many years ago. I welcome today's greater awareness of all kinds of environmental considerations. It is right that they should be properly assessed before any decisions are made. The Government take those concerns extremely seriously. In the White Paper, "This Common

Inheritance", the Government have set out what has been done and what is proposed. For minerals, attention is drawn to the importance of balancing the interests of amenity against the need to exploit the resource. It calls on operators to take account of best environmental practice.
In recognition of the environmental concerns arising from minerals working and the fact that minerals are a finite resource, the Government have an extensive research programme into sources of materials, environmental effects, reclamation and related issues. Two projects are of particular relevance. One deals with re-use and recycling by using secondary aggregates—the by-products of industrial processes. We hope that that will provide information on the availability of such materials and their potential for use in construction as alternatives to primary aggregates. A second project will investigate sources of supply from coastal superquarries. Some of the projects are already under way and the results will be taken into account when the Government's minerals planning guidance is reviewed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of old minerals permissions. For some time the Government have been aware of that matter. The Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 provides for a review of mineral workings. It imposes a duty on mineral planning authorities to carry out reviews of mineral workings and to make orders to revoke or modify planning permissions as appropriate with, in some instances, abatement of compensation that may be payable.
The purpose of the review is to monitor all recently active sites or sites authorised but not yet started and to ensure, where practicable, that conditions are consistent with current minerals planning practice. There is no statutory requirement on timing, frequency and manner of carrying out the review. That is a matter for the mineral planning authority. It is also up to the authority to decide which sites should be tackled first. I understand that in the case raised by the hon. Gentleman Northumberland county council has not been able to make much progress on that exercise. But it remains a matter for the county council and not the Secretary of State.
The Government are concerned that that part of the Act does not appear to have been operating as speedily as intended. This time last year a survey by the County Planning Officers Society showed that only some 35 of the 91 mineral planning authorities had started reviews, and progress on the actual reviews that had been started was somewhat patchy. The Government announced in the White Paper their intention to review the operation of that part of the Act, including the compensation arrangements. That review has now started.
I should now like to refer to the site at Druridge bay and to the subject of sand and gravel production in the county of Northumberland. But I must make it clear that I cannot make any specific comment on the merits of the particular case, since under the terms of the review that I mentioned it could come formally before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Druridge bay comprises a five-and-a-half-mile sand beach on the Northumberland coast about 20 miles north of Newcastle. It is backed by sand dunes, beyond which is pastureland. Sand extraction is believed to have been taking place there for about 80 years. In 1960 planning permission was granted on appeal by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government for sand extraction in part of the bay at Hemscott hill. Conditions were imposed


on the depth of working and confined the use of machinery to a small mechanical shovel. Further permission was granted on appeal in 1965 to extract sand at Blakemoor burn to the south of the other site.
A site of special scientific interest has recently been designated at Blakemoor burn and on part of the bay to the north of Hemscott hill. A wildlife reserve has also been recently created north of Hemscott hill.
As the hon. Gentleman said, sand extraction has increased over the years. I am aware that there are concerns about flooding and erosion because of loss of sand in the dunes, because in the past it has been removed faster than it was being replaced. But, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, for the past two and a half years sand extraction at the site has voluntarily been restricted to the Blakemoor burn site, and the dunes and foreshore at Hemscott hill are not being worked. I believe also that there could be other causes of erosion in the bay, notably coal mining subsidence.
The county is an important source for sand and gravel for the nearby Tyne and Wear. Although the county council now has a landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in excess of the 10-year minimum to which Government guidance refers, it is acknowledged in the regional commentary of the northern regional aggregates working party that there could be a shortfall of sand and gravel by the year 2006. The commentary states that
for sand and gravel to 2006 it is unlikely that extension to some sites will be possible and there could be problems in finding environmentally acceptable new sites in Northumberland accessible to the main Tyneside Markets".
The importance of that site as a source of sand, relative to other sources in the country, therefore needs careful consideration by the minerals planning authority.

Mr. Beith: The Minister has put his finger on a rather important point. If there is a basis for the concern about future supply, it could lead to the full working of the entire planning permissions, including the dunes area, which is voluntarily not being worked at present. That strengthens the case, therefore, for new protection of that area.

Mr. Yeo: Commercial pressures may point in one direction. I dare say that the reasons that led the operator voluntarily to end mining sand at Hemscott hill will still apply with equal force in future.
As I mentioned, the county in which the hon. Gentleman's constituency is situated has much to commend it environmentally. Indeed, I note that significant areas are within the Northumberland national park. Much of the coastline to the north of Druridge bay is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty and identified as heritage coast. I also note, however, that Druridge bay itself does not come within any of those designations.
The hon. Gentleman has requested that the Secretary of State should use his powers to end sand extraction at Druridge bay. I think that it would help if I explained the powers that are available for revoking a permission.
Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides local planning authorities with powers to make orders to revoke or modify a planning permission if it appears expedient to do so. If planning permission is revoked, the owner or occupier of the land—in this case,

the minerals operator—may, in accordance with section 107, make a claim for compensation from the local planning authority. That would be on the grounds of abortive expenditure or sustained loss or damage attributable to revocation. Section 107 specifically provides for the local planning authority to pay the compensation.
If it appears to the Secretary of State that an order should be made under section 97 and the local planning authority has not done so, he may himself make such an order under section 100. Such an order would have the same effect as if it had been made by the local planning authority. Even if that default power were to be used by the Secretary of State, it would still fall to the local planning authority to pay any compensation due. I understand why the hon. Gentleman may feel that, if the Secretary of State has granted planning permission that is subsequently revoked by him, he ought to pay any due compensation. But I am afraid that there is no provision for the Secretary of State to do so.
The Secretary of State has considered a request to use those default powers from the county council, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, explained, on the basis of the information available, he was not persuaded that use of the powers would be justified. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be pleased to hear, however, that the Government are reviewing the operation of the legislation.
I hope from what I have said that I have made it clear that the Government recognise the very real concerns about the environmental impact of mineral operations. As we have said in the White Paper, we plan to issue further guidance on how those matters can be improved. Of course many companies already take environmental considerations seriously, but there is no room for complacency in any of us. It is particularly important that problems should be tackled in a co-operative manner with minerals planning authorities, such as Northumberland, working in close liaison with the industry to see what can be done on an informal basis. That approach has worked successfully in a number of counties and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is much to commend it if there is to be progress.
I have listened very carefully and with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said to support the end of sand extraction at Druridge bay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered the issue but concluded that it is a matter for the county council to decide in the light of the prevailing circumstances. It is in the best position to strike the right balance of supply of sand and gravel against the environmental costs. It also has the powers to revoke or modify the existing planning permission.
As I said a moment ago, there is considerable merit in the operators and the county council holding discussions to see what might be done about the present operations without recourse to the statutory powers that are available. I understand that some discussions have started and I would urge both parties to continue that dialogue without delay as a positive and sensible way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past One o'clock.